The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
IP
¿ss*
UNITED STATES DEPAR’
CHILDREN’ S B U R E A U -----------^ U ^ C A T ^ No. 222
^
«
0
*
------------------
JUVENILE -COURT
STATISTICS : 1931
Iuin
iDigitized
t n for FRASER
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
FRANCES PERKINS, Secretary
CHILDREN’S BUREAU
GRACE ABBOTT. Chief
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS
1931
BASED ON INFORMATION SUPPLIED
BY 92 COURTS
FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT
«
Bureau Publication No. 222
UNITED STATES
GOVERNM ENT PRINTIN G OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1933
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents. Washington, D. C.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Price 10 cents
CONTENTS
Page
The cooperating courts------------------------------------------------Delinquency cases.. . --------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Trends in juvenile delinquency----------------------------------------------------------------Children involved in the cases---------------------------------------A ge--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Color and n ativity--------------------------------------- --------------Place child was living when referred to court, and marital status ot
parents-------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------Sources of reference to court----------------- -------------------------------------------------Place of care pending hearing or disposition. - -- -----------------------------------Number of times children were referred to court-----------------------------------Reasons for reference to court----------------------------------------------------------------Dispositions------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dependency and neglect cases-----------------------------------------------------------------------Children involved in the cases---------------------------------------- ----------------------Age, color, and n ativity------------------------------- ---------------rr - - - ; —
Place child was living when referred to court, and marital status ot
parents-------------------------------- ---------------------------",--------------------------Reasons for reference and sources of reference to cou rt-------------------------Dispositions---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Other types of children’ s cases--------------- ------------------------------------------------------Cases of children discharged from supervision. . .
------------- r ----------------------Reasons for discharge, and conduct while under supervision-----------------Length of time under supervision-----------------------------------------------------------Source tables----------------------------- - - r i r “ “.—
TV—
Appendix— Courts furnishing statistical material f o r ! 9 d l ---------------------------ii
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2
2
„
„
^
j"
2j
27
2s
2e
^
oi
oa
fin
ou
JUVENILE.COURT STATISTICS, 1931
THE COOPERATING COURTS
The report on juvenile-court statistics for 1931 is the fifth annual
report based on data supplied by courts cooperating with the Chil
dren’s Bureau in the plan for obtaining uniform statistics of delinquency, dependency and neglect, and other children’s cases dealt
with by juvenile courts.
During that year reports of cases of children dealt with by the
juvenile courts were received from all the courts in Connecticut
(89 courts) and Utah (8 courts) and from 71 courts in 21 other
j
and
District of Columbia. The State of Connecticut was
added to the reporting area, and several other changes occurred in
the list of cooperating courts. Five courts serving areas with more
estimated population1 and 3 s e r v i n g a somewhat
smaller group 2 were added, and 18 courts serving areas with smaller
populations discontinued reporting. These changes are in accord
with the program of the Children’s Bureau to encourage State-wide
reporting through a State agency, usually the department of public
• j - - j ’ an(* to C0]Qtinue
develop the reporting to the Bureau of
lniil U ua^ ca?es on*y from courts serving large urban communities,
which report m greater detail than the States are prepared to request
from all courts, at least at present.
The courts now reporting to the Bureau serve about one fifth of the
population of the United States. During 1931 they submitted facts
regarding 59,880 delinquency cases, 22,317 dependency and neglect
cases, 1,116 cases of other types over which the courts had jurisdic
tion, and 17,356 cases of children who had been discharged from
supervision after a period of probation or supervision.
The tables included in tins report are of two types: Summary
tables, combining the figures for all courts, and source tables, giving
facts m regard to the cases reported by individual courts. In previyears all the courts reported information for each case on a card,
which made possible the correlation of any items reported. In the
State plan for reporting used in Connecticut, summary tables are
prepared by the courts, and a consolidated table showing figures for
all courts is sent to the Children’s Bureau. Figures for Connecticut
exclus].ve of Bridgeport, which reported cases on individual cards,*
could be used, therefore, in only those summary and source tables
that present such basic facts in delinquency and dependency and
neglect cases as the age and color of the child, the reason for refer
ence to the court, and the disposition and manner of dealing with
CountyFpanCISC° County’ Callf': Dade County. Fla-I Orleans Parish, La.; Syracuse, N.Y.; and Fayette
2La Salle County, 111.; Muskegon County, Mich.; and Kenosha County, Wis.
1
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
2
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
the case by the court, and, in cases dismissed from supervision, the
reason for discharge and the length of time under supervision.
The source tables (pp. 37 to 59) present details as to the cases
reported by the 43 courts that were serving areas of 100,000 or more
population. In these tables cases reported by courts serving less
populous areas are combined and reported as one unit.3 Con
solidated figures for the entire State are also made available for Utah
and in some instances for Connecticut. Two of the courts (Hudson
County and Mercer County, N.J.) serving areas of 100,000 or more
population did not report cases of dependency and neglect. Hart
ford and New Haven, Conn., were not included in all source tables,
as the courts in these cities did not report their cases on cards.
DELINQUENCY CASES
TR E N D S IN JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
Delinquency rates, based on the number of delinquent children
referred to the juvenile court per 10,000 children of juvenile-court age
of the same sex, have been calculated for courts serving areas of
100,000 or more population that reported cases on cards to the
Children’s Bureau during 1931. Rates for each court have been
prepared for each year that the court reported cases since the effort
to promote uniform statistics began in 1927. (See table 3.) Nine
teen courts4 have reported each year of the 5-year period. During
this time progress has been made toward uniformity in reporting,
and it is possible to reach some conclusions as to trend in juvenilecourt delinquency rates from these courts.
The trend of the rates for boys was upward from 1927 to 1930 (162
in 1927, 174 in 1928, 183 in 1929, and 184 in 1930), but in each year
of this period the percentage increase was less. The 1928 increase
over 1927 amounted to 7 percent, the 1929 increase over 1928 was 5
percent, and thé 1930 increase over 1929 was less than 1 percent.
This slowing up in the percentage increase to a point where it is
negligible between 1929 and 1930 was followed by a definite drop in
the rate in 1931 (172), which amounts to 7 percent decrease from the
preceding year. For the 18 courts reporting girls’ cases the delin
quency rates for girls show the same general tendency* There was
an upward trend from 1927 to 1929; the 1930 rate was the same as
that of 1929, and the 1931 rate definitely lower than that of 1930.
Analysis of the ages of the children whose cases were reported by
these courts shows that the decrease in rates in 1931 from 1930 was
largely due to a decrease in cases of children under 14 years of age.
Table 1 gives information as to the number of cases of children of
different ages dealt with by these courts in 1930 and in 1931 and shows
the percent of change in cases from 1930 to 1931 in the different age
groups. The decrease in cases of boys under 10 years of age amounted
to 18 percent, the percent of decrease becoming progressively smaller
in the older age groups. In girls’ cases a decrease was found in each
age group, except for those under 10 years of age, the largest decrease
(16 percent) being in cases of girls 12 and 13 years of age.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
3
T a b l e 1.— Age o f boys and girls when referred to court in 1930 and in 1931 and
'percentage change in 1931 as compared wzth 1930/ boys’ and girls’ delinguency
cases disposed of by 19 courts 1 reporting throughout the period 1927-31
Boys’ cases *
Age of child
1930
1931
Total cases............... ......... ..............
25,946
25,142
Under 10 years__________________
10 years, under 12....................
12 years, under 1 4 . . .......................... ........
14 years, under 16______________ ____
16 years, under 18_________________
18 years and over______________
Not reported________________ .
1,686
3,496
6,904
10,935
2,602
60
263
1,384
3,263
6,339
10,848
2,683
59
566
Girls’ cases *
Percent
age
change
-1 8
-7
-8
-1
+3
(»)
1930
1931
4,206
3,858
122
239
805
2,344
671
12
13
126
224
680
2,103
665
7
53
Percent
age
change
+3
-6
-1 6
-1 0
-1
«
1 Only 18 courts reported girls’ cases.
8 Includes only official cases for Franklin County, Ohio.
s Percentage change not shown because the age of original jurisdiction for these courts was under 18 years,
although a few children above this age were dealt with.
Table 2 gives the reasons why boys and girls were brought before
these courts in the different years. A large part of the decrease in
total cases in 1931 as compared with 1930 was due to reduction in the
number of boys’ cases classified as “ acts of carelessness or mischief” ,
“ truancy” , or “ ungovernable,” and in cases of girls referred for
truancy, being ungovernable, or sex offense. This decrease in cases
of being ungovernable and in girls’ truancy cases began in 1930; in
boys’ truancy cases the decrease began in 1929. Stealing, the most
common offense for which boys are referred to the court, and the one
that would be expected to show the effect of economic conditions,
increased each year from 1927 to 1931. Although the percentage
increase (2) in stealing from 1930 to 1931 was smaller than in previous
years, it is significant because of the drop in total cases in 1931.
Another significant increase, continuous since 1929, was in cases of
boys who had run away. There was a decrease rather than an increase
in 1931 in cases of girls charged with stealing and running away.
Changes in the number of cases of other types of offenses are less
significant because of the smaller number of such cases. The increase
in 1931 of cases of children charged with the use, possession, or sale of
liquor or drugs, although the number of cases is small, is of interest.
Conditions in particular localities, or changes in the policies, prac
tices, or services of a few courts, may have a marked influence upon
their combined figures. For example, in 1931 the increase in cases of
boys running away was due largely to increases in such cases in
Hamilton County, Ohio, New York City, and Philadelphia, Pa.; the
largest drop in truancy cases was reported by Hudson County, N.J.;
and the decrease in cases involving acts of carelessness and mischief,
and traffic violations, was affected by the marked drop in such cases
in New York City.
Juvenile-court delinquency rates are given in table 3 for each year
that cases were reported, for the 41 courts serving areas of 100,000 or
more population reporting boys and girls dealt with in delinquency
cases during 1931. The delinquency rates for boys and for girls
fluctuate from year to year in the different courts. The general trend
in rates for this larger group of courts was the same as for the 19 courts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
T a b l e 2.— Reason for reference to court and percentage change as compared with
previous years; boys’ and girls’ delinquency cases disposed o f by 19 courts1 reporting
throughout the period 1927-81
Percentage change in-
Delinquency cases
Reason for reference to court,
and sex of child
1929
1930 2
1931 »
1928
com
pared
with
1927»
1929
com
pared
with
1928»
1930
com
pared
with
1929»
1931
com
pared
with
1930»
1927
1928
Total cases.
26,296
27,408
29,271
30,152
29,000
+4
+7
+3
Boys’ cases.
22,499
23,324
24,982
25,946
25,142
+4
+7
+4
-3
9,263
Stealing...........................
Act of carelessness or mis
chief, and traffic violation.. 6,362
1,580
Truancy............. - .................
Running away..................... ..1,547
1,676
TJngo vernable___________ _
461
Sex offense.----------------------745
Injury to person---------------Use, possession, or sale of
140
liquor or drugs...... ...........
553
Other reason--------------------172
Reason not reported-----------
9,635
10,105
10,690
10,881
+4
+6
+6
+2
7,977 «8,307 «7,868
1,099
1,473
1,566
1,803
1,627
1,587
1,526
1,672
1,816
331
387
349
675
661
667
+11
+4
0
+5
-1 9
-1 5
+13
-5
+3
+3
-7
+5
+4
-6
+3
+11
-1
-6
-2 5
+11
-9
-1 5
+2
89
431
115
680
103
1,013
13
144
732
83
-3 7
-2 2
+29
+58
-11
+49
+40
-2 8
3,797
4,084
4,289
4,206
3,858
+8
+5
-2
-8
493
531
507
+6
-5
+8
-5
«373
315
724
1,108
652
79
(')
+9
-3
+16
+11
-8
+6
+8
+19
+2
-3
-1
+15
-1 2
-3
-7
+15
-1 2
-4
-16
-4
-9
43
25
32
+12
+45
-64
Girls’ cases.
Stealing............................. ~
Act of carelessness or mis
chief, and traffic violation.
Truancy................ —
Running away--------Ungovernable----------Sex offense........ ..........
Injury to person.........
Use, possession, or s
liquor or drugs........
Other reason...............
Reason not reported—
496
7,055
1,650
1,547
1,764
373
637
520
319
363
672
1,104
624
108
318
395
653
1,286
693
100
337
425
780
1,309
675
99
<388
376
757
1,222
774
87
29
50
32
56
37
81
29
-4
"Jo6!
—
1 f n c l u t o X ^ f f l c M m S f o r K k l i n County, Ohio, as unofficial cases were not reported in previous
^»’ percentage change not shown where number of cases was less than 50 or where information was not
aVandudes traffic violators (511 boys and 11 girls in 1930; 565 boys and 18 girls in 1931). Number not
reported separately in previous years.
* Less than 1 percent.
Only 9 5of the 36 courts reporting for 1930 and 1931 had higher boys’
rates in 1931 than in 1930. The percent of increase in rates varied
from 2 in the District of Columbia to 46 m Milwaukee County.
In 2 of these courts, however— District of Columbia and Multnomah
County Oreg.— the difference in the rates was too small to be statis
tically significant. This marked increase in Milwaukee was due
largely to closer cooperation between the court and the ponce depart
ment, and between the court and the district attorney s office. As a
result every juvenile case coming to the attention of the police was
referred to the juvenile court, and a number of boys that previously
would have been sent to other courts« were referred to the juvenile
court. Boys’ rates in 27 courts were lower in 1931 than m iy«5U, in
16 courts 7 the decrease was statistically significant.
.
,
The rates for girls for the same courts are also given m table 3.
In 11 courts the girls’ rates were higher m 1931 than m 1930, but
Philadelphia, Pa.; and Pierce County, Wash.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
5
because of the small number of girls’ cases, the increase in only 1
court (Mercer County, N.J.) was statistically significant. Twentythree courts had lower rates for girls in 1931 than in 1930; in 10 of
these8 the decrease in rate was significant. The girls’ rates in
Hennepin County, Minn., and in Milwaukee County, Wis were
the same in 1930 and 1931.
T a b l e 3 — Juvenile-delinquency rates per 1 0 ,0 0 0 boys and girls o f juvenile court age
iaav
1930• 1937—31 ^
courts 8ertfing areas with 1 00 ,0 0 0 or more population in
Boys
Girls
Area served by court
1927
Alabama: Mobile County___________
California:
San Diego County______________
San Francisco County.............. .
Connecticut: Bridgeport (city)______
District of Columbia__________ _____
Florida: Dade County........ ................
Georgia: Fulton County_____ ____ ___
Indiana:
Lake County___________________
Marion County________ ________
Iowa: Polk County________ ________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish___________________
Orleans Parish................. ...............
Maryland: Baltimore (city)__________
^Michigan:
P
Kent County___________________
v
Wayne County__________________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_______________
Ramsey County_______ _______ _
New Jersey:
Hudson County........ ........... ..........
Mercer County_____ ____________
New York:
Buffalo (c it y ) .................................
Erie County (exclusive of Buffalo).
Monroe County_________ _____ _
New York (city)_________________
Rensselaer County_______________
Syracuse (city)__________________
Westchester County_____________
Ohio:
Franklin County________________
Hamilton County________________
Mahoning County_______________
Montgomery County____________
Oregon: Multnomah County_________
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County_______________
Fayette County_________________
Montgomery County.......................
Philadelphia (city and county)___
South Carolina: Greenville County___
Utah: Third District________________
Virginia: Norfolk____________________
Washington:
Pierce County___________________
Spokane County_________________
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County_______
1928
1929
1930
143
123
484
143
293
427
268
448
270
417
141
181
133
150
327
57
186
325
276
409
361
100
146
252
181
165
94
196
230
438
18
289
467
1927
1928
1929
1930
35
454
74
265
417
337
308
103
82
113
14
82
37
95
24
50
64
73
58
41
54
67
86
100
202
1931
309
76
170
347
155
183
152
176
138
178
109
167
108
163
138
188
106
41
36
218
143
219
219
232
210
206
198
26
26
165
103
52
115
162
104
58
124
177
178
103
40
122
198
84
53
209
110
164
154
100
162
146
69
161
201
477
127
80
244
489
182
168
164
96
1931
221
248
496
132
283
*82
294
444
121
15
19
33
39
35
27
19
18
8
9
16
37
10
11
65
59
116
113
88
52
»58
105
115
85
46
»50
104
117
75
43
"ÎÔ8
310
72
70
61
23
280
60
252
398
20
320
78
258
533
36
342
56
261
470
51
15
27
320
55
320
422
76
58
80
342
254
50
324
370
32
17
5
93
43
16
41
115
20
4
48
17
59
113
4
4
47
12
65
96
25
59
68
\ Courts reporting in 1931 that reported in 1 or more years during the period 1927-31.
Based on official cases only, as unofficial cases were not reported in previous years.
The rates in different localities varied widely in 1931. Rates based
on the number of boys referred to the courts serving areas with
100,000 or more population varied from 454 in San Diego County,
Calif., to 15 in Fayette County, Pa., the rate for these 41 courts
, L, ak?xC,ount^ and. M 5 ™ n County, Ind.; Polk County, Iowa; Caddo Parish, La.; Wayne County,
^ d T t o d Dte°rtetUUteiLi J '’ NeW York City and WestCh«ster County, N .Y.; Allegheny County, Pa\;
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
6
combined being 176; girls’ rates varied from 117 in Mahoning County,
Ohio, to 4 in Fayette County and Montgomery County, ra. , the ^
rate for the 41 courts combined being 32.
A number of factors other than variation m the amount ot delin
quency influence these differences in rates. Important among these
is the age limitation of original jurisdiction of the court. Evidence
of this is to be found in table 4, which presents for all courts having
higher age jurisdiction separate rates for the boys and ^girls under
16 years of age and for the total number of boys and girls brought
before the court. The inclusion of older boys and girls affected the
rates of some courts more than of others. The percentage differ
ence was highest in courts having jurisdiction up to 18 years oi age.
In 3 of these courts (Ramsey County, Minn.; Norfolk, Ya.; and
Spokane County, Wash.) the rate for boys was more than 50 percent
higher when the older boys are included, and m 7 courts (Hennepin
County and Ramsey County, M inn.; Franklin County and Hamilton
County, Ohio; Third District, Utah; Spokane County Wash.; and
Milwaukee County, Wis.) more than 50 percent higher for girls
when the older girls are included. The percentage difference m
rates of the two California courts, with original jurisdiction under
18 years and concurrent jurisdiction under 21, is about the same as
in courts having jurisdiction under 17 years.
The delinquency rate of a court is also affected by the relative
numbers of white and Negro children in the areas served. Rates
have been calculated separately for white and Negro children for 14
courts that had reported to the bureau for 5 years serving areas m f p
which 10,000 or more of the population were Negro, lh e rates lor
Negro children are consistently higher than for white children.
(Table 5.) In 1931 rates for Negro boys were from slightly less
than 2 to 4 times as large as the rates for white boys and for negro
girls from less than 2 to more than 7 times as large as the rates tor
white girls. Rates for Negro boys in the 14 courts varied from 888
of everv 10,000 of juvenile-court age m Mahomng County, Ohio, to
100 in Montgomery County, Pa., the rate for the 14 courts combined
being 576; rates for Negro girls in 13 courts varied from 346 to 19,
the rate for these 13 courts combined being 126
Comparison of the rates for white children with the total rates lor
the same 14 courts, given in table 3, shows that the inclusion of
Negro boys and girls had a much greater effect upon the total rate
of some courts than of others. For example, rates^ for white and
Negro boys in the District of Columbia and in Buffalo are compar
able although not identical. The total rate for boys in 1931 m
Buffalo (198) was only 5 percent higher than the rate for white boys,
whereas the total rate in the District of Columbia (417) w a s 74 per
cent higher than the rate for white boys. T h is inarked effect of the
Negro rate upon the total rate in the District of Columbia is due to
the fact that more than a fourth of the boys of juvenile-court age in
the District are Negroes. The rates for boys m 4 other courts
(Marion County, Ind.; Franklin County and Hamilton County, Ohio,
and Norfolk, Va.) were increased from 22 to 30 percent by the
inclusion of Negro boys.
the juvenile court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
T ablei 4.— Juvenile-delinquency rales per 10,000 boys and girls o f juvenile-court
adf dealt with by courts having jurisdiction over 15 years of age and serving areas
with 100,000 or more population m 1930 ; 1931
Delinquency rates
Area served by court
Boys
Age of original
court jurisdiction
7 to 15
years
California:
San Diego County________
San Francisco County____
District of Columbia_________
Florida: Dade County________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish________ ____
Orleans Parish____________
Indiana:
Lake County_____________
Marion County__________
Iowa: Polk County__________ I
Michigan:
Kent County_____________
Wayne County___________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County________
Ramsey County__________
Ohio:
Franklin County_________
Hamilton County_________
Mahoning County________
Montgomery County_____
( Oregon: Multnomah County...
Utah: Third District__________
Virginia: Norfolk (city)_______
Washington:
Pierce County____________
Spokane County__________
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County.
Girls
7 to up
per age
limit
7 to 15
years
7 to up
per age
limit
Under 21.
___ do___
Under 17.
___ do___
404
65
368
317
454
74
417
337
77
17
56
60
95
24
64
73
.d o.
.d o.
67
149
76
170
14
16
15
19
202
31
40
46
41
54
57
Under 18 (girls)..
----- d o . . ..............
Under 18________
0)
0
166
0
0
Under 17.
-----do___
154
120
176
138
23
14
32
17
Under 18.
-----do___
135
68
188
106
24
20
41
36
-do.
-do.
-d o.
-d o.
.d o .
-do.
-d o.
»58
221
341
97
243
253
275
»82
294
444
121
310
320
422
»32
67
86
60
32
35
71
»50
104
117
75
43
65
96
-do_
.d o .
-d o.
34
212
269
50
324
370
20
36
35
25
59
68
1Age jurisdiction for boys undfer 16 years.
*Based on official cases only.
Another significant factor to b© considered, in studying delinquency
rates of individual courts is the extent to which the court is dealing
with minor cases of delinquency as well as with those involving
serious conduct problems. The number of cases dismissed by the
court after a warning had been given or some adjustment made of the
dimculty, or of cases held open without further action being anticipated, gives some indication of this situation, although some differ
ences exist in the policies and procedures of the courts. In some
courts children committing minor offenses may be placed under
supervision of probation officers rather than be dismissed by the
•" 1S interesting to note that of the 16 courts serving areas
on iio i f ° or more population having a rate for boys of more than
200, all, with the exception of the court in Norfolk, Va., had dis
missed or indefinitely continued from 35 to 73 percent of the cases
referred. (See table V III a , p. 48.) Most of these courts reported a
large number of unofficial cases. (See table VII, p. 47.) On the
other hand, all but 2 (Mobile County, Ala., and Caddo Parish, La.)
J I M S ' ™ore
400; San Diego County, Calif.; District of Columbia; Mahoning County OhioT^Hm™ff 1^ y a'TV/rRu 'es ° * w i re ^ an 300 but less than 400: Dade County, Fla.; Fulton County Oa •
181160°—83----- 2
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
8
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
of the 12 courts having a rate of less than 100 11 had dismissed only
20 percent or less of their cases, 2 (Allegheny County and Montgom- ^
ery County, Pa.) having no dismissals.
T a b l e 5.-Juvenile-delinquency rates per 10,000 white and Negro boys and girls
of juvenile-court age jurisdiction dealt with by courts serving areas with 100,000
or more total population and 10,000 or more Negro population m 1980; courts
reporting throughout the period 1927—81
1931
1930
1929
1928
1927
Area served by court and sex
of child
Negro
V
White Negro White Negro White Negro White Negro White
BOYS
District of Columbia------ -----Indiana:
Lake County....................
Marion County------------New Jersey:
Hudson County. ..............
Mercer County.................
New York:
Buffalo (city)----------------New York (city)...............
Westchester County.........
Ohio:
Franklin County----------Hamilton County............
Mahoning County---------Pennsylvania:
Montgomery County----Philadelphia (city and
county)--------------------Virginia: Norfolk (city)-----—
District of Columbia.........
Indiana:
Lake C ou n ty ......... —
Marion County--------New Jersey:
Hudson County-------Mercer County--------New York:
Buffalo (city)..............
New York (city).........
Westchester County..
Ohio:
Franklin County-----Mahoning County----Pennsylvania:
Montgomery County.
county)-------------Virginia: Norfolk (city).
922
234
892
275
808
265
229
866
239
865
172
347
139
154
189
422
126
119
256
421
54
139
115
601
97
114
160
420
77
87
197
97
698
270
211
134
627
306
211
193
658
690
225
183
632
694
198
184
635
441
154
79
196
102
170
404
163
108
153
333
342
486
157
116
144
454
377
456
173
113
94
444
384
273
189
655
342
147
154
179
411
589
776
935
133
172
443
435
509
1,105
55
200
459
332
695
1, on
1 59
204
463
1 376
686
1,006
1 67
238
415
1 225
834
14
136
23
40
19
52
30
193
25
100
809
817
295
331
788
756
269
327
7884
623^
21
160
102
67
245
345
761
712
238
284
713
630
269
394
30
171
35
182
39
169
20
160
61
57
163
287
49
64
109
174
32
77
117
160
62
67
197
153
124
200
29
7
37
76
36
11
177
31
38
9
101
29
35
12
105
28
70
91
10
13
30
75
53
179
13
17
25
41
63
149
12
18
23
113
83
122
17
17
17
58
87
91
76
70
43
54
94
164
344
59
87
109
259
50
100
134
316
1 46
101
> 160
319
5
33
4
21
3
10
4
29
34
72
174
185
39
73
161
142
29
64
170
143
30
80
174
178
« 41
101
1»128
346
151
128
i Based on official cases only as unofficial cases were not reported in previous years.
The relation between the court and the police, the school depart
ment and the social agencies will affect the number of children
referred to the court and the juvenile-court delinquency rate. In
some places all children arrested by the police are referred to the
juvenile court, whereas in others the police themselves deal with
many children, especially those committing minor offenses and violat
ing traffic rules. The school department may deal with nearly all
1930 and 1931.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
9
truancy problems through its own agenices, or it may refer large
numbers of attendance cases to the court.12 If the school system
includes such facilities for constructive work with problem children
as a child-study department, visiting teachers, and well-trained
attendance officers, it is probable that many cases, including other
behavior problems as well as truancy, which would otherwise be dealt
with by the courts, will be cared for by the schools.13 The extent to
which agencies doing case work with problem children or their fam
ilies are available in the community, and the place that the court
holds in the estimation of social agencies and the public, also influence
the number of children referred.
CH ILD REN INVOLVED IN TH E CASES u
The ages of the children before the courts as delinquents were
reported by all of the 143 courts dealing with delinquency cases.
Information as to the nativity of the child and his parents, the place
where he was living when referred to the court, and the marital
status of his parents, was available only for the cases dealt with by
79 courts that reported individual cases on cards.16
AGE
The maximum age of original jurisdiction of the 143 courts varied
from under 16 to under 21. One hundred and one courts had jurisdiction over delinquent children under 16 years of age;16 7 had jurisW fiction under 17 years;17 29 had jurisdiction under 18 years;18 and 2
had jurisdiction under 21 years.19 Of the remaining 4 courts, 2 (in
Indiana) had jurisdiction over delinquent boys under 16 and delin
quent girls under 18, and 2 (in Illinois) had jurisdiction over boys
under 17 and girls under 18.
The extent to which the age limitation of original jurisdiction of the
courts affected the number of cases dealt with is shown in table 6.20
Cases of children under 16 years of age were reported by all the courts.
Of the total number of cases of boys for whom age was reported,
41,664 involved boys under 16 years of age; 48 percent of these cases
involved boys of 14 or 15 years of age, the largest number of cases
being those of 15-year-old boys. The concentration of girls’ cases
m these age groups is even more marked, as in 65 percent of the cases
of girls under 16 years of age the children were 14 or 15 vears of age
a
cases0 *110’ the Probatlon office and the school-attendance department handle jointly
13 The practice in some jurisdictions of proceeding against the parents in cases of truancy reduces the
number of children brought to court on that charge.
14 In 1927 and 1928 tables showing age and social characteristics of the children involved in the cases were
based on individual children, not cases. A comparison of tables relating to social data based on “ children”
aac* °?v. CiiS8S revealed^110 significant differences in percent distribution. All tables for 1929, 1930 and
referredonanew'complaint meS ’ each child being counted as many times during a year as he was
1« Consolidated tables including all items on the cards are submitted by the court of Philadelphia, Pa
16 Fourteen in Alabama, 65 m Connecticut, 1 in Georgia, l in Maryland, 2 in New Jersey, 11 in New
York, 1 in North Carolina, 5 in Pennsylvania, and 1 in South Carolina.
2 ne tbe Distr.ict of. Columbia, 1 in Florida, 2 in Louisiana, and 3 in Michigan.
2 in Wlscon^n^’ 3 Mmnesota>8 in Ohio> 1 ln Oregon, 8 in Utah, 3 in Virginia, 2 in Washington, and
19 San Francisco County and San Diego County, Calif.
J ° , 1;hei nuClui!i on, lrl ft® tables of a few cases of children beyond the age of original jurisdiction may be
explained by the fact that some courts have jurisdiction beyond the age of original jurisdiction in certain
situations; for example, a case in which the offense was committed before the age limit was reached, even
though the case did not come to the attention of the court until afterward; and a case in which a child made
a vard before reaching the age limit was brought before thp court on a new complaint. Occasionally courts
(leaJ idformally with children who are just beyond the age of juvenile-court jurisdiction.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
10
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
In the courts having jurisdiction under 17 years of age more 15-yearold girls and boys had been referred to the court than children of
any other age, the number of 16-year-old children being smaller.
A different situation was found in the larger number of courts that
have jurisdiction under 18 or under 21 years. In these courts cases
of 16-year-old children (4,492) constituted the peak in cases of boys
and girls reported, the number of cases of 17-year-old boys and girls
(3,937) being smaller. The small number of cases of boys and girls
of 18 years of age or over reported by San Diego and San Francisco,
the only reporting courts having jurisdiction over children under 21,
is undoubtedly affected by the fact that other courts have concurrent
jurisdiction over cases of minors 18 years and older.
T a b l e 6.— Age limitation of original court jurisdiction and age of boys and girls
dealt with in delinquency cases disposed of by 143 courts during 1931 1
Delinquency cases
Age limitation of original court jurisdiction and sex of child
Total
Age of child
Under 16 years8 Under 17 years Under 18 years Under 21 years3
Boys
Total cases___ 51,278
Under 10 years------- 2,939
2,791
10 years....... - .........
3,751
11 years___________
12 years....... ............. 5,255
13 years...................- 6,880
9,286
14 years___________
15 years.................... 10,762
16 years..................... 5,162
17 years.-................. 3,259
228
18 years and over___
965
Not reported............
Girls
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
Girls
Boys
8,602
26,620
3,524
6,554
925
16,234
3,780
1,870
373
1,891
1,837
2,414
3,347
4,277
5,626
6,246
426
52
18
486
142
116
160
277
504
908
1,200
149
25
6
37
233
298
459
589
838
1,202
1,376
1,238
81
15
225
28
9
22
34
102
207
252
211
11
2
47
727
605
828
1,236
1,645
2,188
2,775
3,067
2,796
119
248
77
56
82
177
285
554
793
913
742
41
60
88
51
50
83
120
270
365
431
330
76
6
22
10
4
11
30
46
61
81
69
37
2
269
191
268
499
921
1,715
2,306
1,354
847
86
146
i Of the 143 courts only 139 reported boys’ cases and 110 girls’ cases.
......
. 17
* Includes truancy cases in Westchester and Rensselaer Counties, N .Y. (where jurisdiction to 17 years
authorized by the State-wide education law is exercised).
iIncludes only San Diego County and San Francisco County, Calif.
In tables I I a and I I b (pp. 39 and 40), which give information as
to the age of boys and girls reported by individual courts, may be
found some interesting differences in the age distribution of cases
reported from different localities. In some courts the number of
younger boys dealt with was unusually large, particularly in the courts
of Bridgeport and Hartford, Conn.; Baltimore, M d.; and Mercer
County, N.J. All these courts have jurisdiction over children under
16 years of age, and cases of boys under 12 constitute about a third
of the number of cases in which age of the boy was reported. The
proportion of cases of girls under 12 was much smaller in all these
courts. In 6 courts having jurisdiction under 18 years (Hennepin
County and Ramsey County, Minn.; Norfolk, Va.; Pierce County
and Spokane County, Wash.; and Milwaukee, Wis.) the number of
cases of 17-year-old boys was particularly large, being practically
identical or larger than the number of cases of 16-year-old boys. A
similar relation between cases of 16 and 17 year old girls was found in
all these courts with the exception of the 2 in Washington, and also
in Lake County, Ind., and Milwaukee County, Wis.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
H
Table 7 shows the difference in age distribution in cases of white
and colored children reported by 78 courts. Children under 14 years
of age were involved in 49 percent of the cases of colored boys and 35
percent of the cases of colored girls, as compared with 38 percent of
the cases of white boys and 20 percent of the cases of white girls.
This larger proportion of younger colored children undoubtedly has
some influence on the differences in the reasons for reference to the
court, and in the dispositions made in cases of white and colored
children, as shown in tables 17 and 21 (pp. 21 and 27).
T a b l e 7.
Age of white and colored boys and girls dealt with in delinquency cases
disposed o f by 78 courts in 1981 1
Delinquency cases
Boys
Age of child
White
Total
Total cases____
Age not reported
Colored
48,720 34,172
761
White
Colored
Color
Color
Per
Per not re
Per
Per not re
Num cent Num cent ported Num cent Num cent ported
ber distri ber distri
ber distri ber distri
bution
bution
bution
bution
Age reported............... 47,969 33,693
Under 10 years___ 2,311
10 years................. 2,153
11 years_________ 3,043
12 years................. 4,431
13 years_________ 6,112
14 years................. 8,740
16 years_________ 10,436
16 years_________ 6,330
17 years................. 4, 099
18 years and over.
314
Girls
7,245
100
7,108
100
1,638
1,533
2,203
3,152
4,353
6,110
7,236
4,329
2,948
191
5
475
5
482
7
633
9
877
13 1,008
18 1,253
21 1,330
13
711
9
302
1
37
7
7
9
12
14
18
19
10
4
1
479
137
15
5,670
T
5,579
100
1,582
100
143
94
132
2
273
1
499
1 1,051
1, 519
1,050
2
739
79
3
2
2
5
9
19
27
19
13
1
55
43
3
3
127
251
325
8
16
21
i
8
91
1,617
108
7
35
I
7
(*)
1
» Of the 143 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 78 (71 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished in
formation for correlating age and color.
* Less than 1 percent.
COLOR AND NATIVITY
Table 8 shows the color and nativity of the children dealt with in
delinquency cases disposed of by 79 courts, and table 9 shows the
nativity of the parents in cases of white native-born children, which
constituted nearly three fourths of all the cases reported by the
courts.
Colored boys were involved in about one fifth of the boys' cases and
colored girls in about one fourth of the girls' cases. The majority of
the colored children were Negroes, only 41 boys and 12 girls belonging
to other races.21 Tables I I I a and I I I b (pp. 41 and 42 ), which give
details as to color and nativity of children in cases reported by indi
vidual courts, show that much variation exists in the proportion of
cases of colored children reported from different localities. In courts
serving areas with a large Negro population cases of Negro boys and
girls may constitute from one third to nearly two thirds of the cases
brought to the court; as, for example, in the District of Columbia;
In this report Mexican children are classified as white, following the plan used in the 1920 census. In
aliJ t ,re reports it is planned to classify Mexican children separately. In a few localities, such as San Diego
and Lalce County, Ind., a large number of Mexican children were brought to tho court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T2
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
Fulton County, G a.; Marion County, Ind.; Caddo Parish and Orleans
Parish, L a.; and Norfolk, Va.
Among the cases of white children only a few were of children of
foreign birth. This is doubtless due in part to the fact that a smaller
proportion of the foreign-born white population than of the nativeborn white population is of juvenile-court age.
T a b l e 8.—-Color and nativity of boys and girls dealt with in delinquency cases
disposed of by 79 courts during 1981 1
Delinquency cases
Girls
Boys
Color and nativity of child
Number
Percent
distri
bution
Number
Percent
distri
bution
8,154
47,956
Color reported---------- ------------- ------------ - .............. ...... .............
47,941
100
8,153
White ......................... ...................... ....................................
38,959
81
6,247
77
Native....... ............................. - ........... - ...........................
Foreign born.................... ........... ................ .....................
Nativity not reported------------------------- --------------------
35,482
742
2,735
74
2
6
5,804
116
327
71
1
4
8,982
19
1,906
23
Colored___________________________________ ___________
100
1
15
i Of the 143 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 79 (72 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished in
formation on color and nativity.
Information is given in table 9 as to the nativity of the parents of
the native-born white children in 33,629 cases of delinquent boys and
in 5,561 cases of delinquent girls. In nearly half (47 percent) of the
cases of native-born white boys one or both parents were foreign born.
The proportion was somewhat smaller (37 percent) in the cases of
native-born white girls. In a steadily expanding reporting area the
character of the population served by the courts will change slightly
from year to year, but the figures as to parent nativity obtained during
a 5-year period show consistently that foreign-born parentage is less
usual among delinquent native-born white girls than it is in a similar
group of boys. Traditions in some nationality groups as to family con
trol of the activities of girls may have some influence on this situation.
T a b l e 9.— Parent nativity of native white boys and girls 1 dealt with in delinquency
cases disposed of by 79 courts during 1931 2
Delinquency cases of native white
children
Parent nativity
Girls
Boys
Percent
Percent
Number distribu Number distribu
tion
tion
Total cases________ _______________ — ..................- ........
33,629
17,877
15,752
100
53
47
5,561
3,493
2,068
100
63
37
1 Excludes cases of children for whom parent nativity was not reported.
•Of the 143 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 79 (72 of which reported girls cases) furnished infor
mation on parent nativity.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
13
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
PLACE CHILD W AS LIVING W H EN REFERRED TO COURT, AND MARITAL STATUS OF
PARENTS
Tables 10 and 11 give information in regard to the home conditions
of delinquent children. The cases reported in 1931, as well as those
reported in each of the preceding years, give evidence of rather striking
differences in the home conditions of boys and girls who had become
delinquent. This difference between boys’ and girls’ cases is probably
due to several factors.
T a b l e 10.— Place boys and girls were living when referred to court in delinquency
cases disposed of by 79 courts during 1931 1
Delinquency cases
Place child was living when referred to court
Boys
Girls
Percent
Percent
Number distribu Number distribu
tion
tion
8,154
47,956
In own home........... ...............................................................
45,172
100
7,635
100
41,921
93
6,433
84
29, 724
2,275
966
6,698
2,258
66
5
2
15
5
3,616
658
289
1,378
492
47
9
4
18
6
2,549
241
461
6
1
1
931
133
138
12
2
2
2,784
519
1 Of the 143 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 79 (72 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished infor
mation on place child was living when referred to court.
In two thirds of the boys’ cases, but in less than one half of the
girls’ cases, for which this information was reported, the children were
living with both their own parents when they were referred to court.
A correspondingly larger proportion of the girls were living with one
parent or were separated from both parents. Death of one or both
parents had occurred in 21 percent of the boys’ cases as compared
with 30 percent of the girls’ cases. In 10 percent of the boys’ cases
and in 17 percent of the girls’ cases the parents were separated be
cause of divorce, desertion of one parent, or other reason. The lack
of normal family life may play a more significant part in the delin
quency of girls than of boys. Boys may find it easier to develop com
pensating outside interests than do girls when home conditions are
unsatisfactory. It is generally conceded that the difficulties which
bring girls into court are usually more serious in character and proba
bly more clearly related to home conditions than are the difficulties
of boys.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
14
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
T a b l e 11.— Marital status of parents, according to place child was living when
referred to court, in boys’ and in girls’ delinquency cases disposed of by 79 courts
during 1931 1
Delinquency cases
Place child was living when referred to court
In own home
Marital status of parents
Total
In
In
other insti
In Not
With With With
re
fam
both mother father With With
tu other
port
Total own
and mother father ily tion place ed
and
home
par step step only only
ents father mother
Total cases____ _____ 56,110 48,354 33,340
2,933
1,255
8,076 2,750 3,480
374
599
3,303
Boys’ cases_________ 47,956 41,921 29,724
2,275
966
6,698 2,258 2,549
241
461
2,784
53
5
2
11
32
20
34
45
20
4
15
168
55
2
5
21
53
86
6
1
12
2, 770
Married and living together. 30,047 29,700 29,700
1,887 1,656
Mother deserting father___
' 160
186
Father deserting mother___
964
880
Separated for other reasons.. 1,348 1,124
1
Both parents dead________
964
Father dead______________ 5,520 5,213
Mother dead........ .......... .... 3^073 2,444
Not married to each other... '591
334
23
Other status______________
42
Status not reported_______ 3,334
410
Girls’ cases_________
8,154
6,433
3,616
Married and living together. 3,786
Divorced......................... .
552
Mother deserting father____
56
Father deserting mother___
255
Separated for other reasons..
386
Both parents dead________
272
Father d e a d ...___________ 1,159
Mother dead........................
850
Not married to each other..
162
Other status______________
6
Status not reported_______
670
3,610
454
46
225
275
3,610
1,027
'698
83
115
1,690
10
85
80
27
289
1,378
492
931
133
138
519
99
64
8
26
83
247
86
215
67
5
31
26
15
50
17
2
1
10
8
20
17
6
1
6
1
2
600
122
6
2
1
1,360
89
754
4
218
658
203
11
3
359
6
208
126
166
22
68
165
892
219
496
231
37
127
33
1
20
232
8
62
15
741
25
868
923
3,853
175
7
212
240
193
135
6
197
43
38
2
32
668
45
366
4
31
7
3
17
15
25
19
6
7
5
6
52
1
2
1
2
1
1
511
t1 Of the 143 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 79 (72 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished informa
tion on marital status of parents and place child was living when referred to court.
SOURCE OF REFERENCE TO COURT
Table 12 shows the source of reference to the court in delinquency
cases dealt with by the 79 courts that reported on this point.
T a b l e 12.— Source o f reference to court of delinquency cases disposed o f by 79
courts during 1931 1
Delinquency cases
Source of reference to court
Number
Total cases_____
Source reported_______
Police____________
School departmentProbation officer__
Other court_______
Social agency_____
Parents or relatives.
Individual________
Other source______
Source not reported___
56,110
55,964
35,478
4,046
3,099
393
779
4,608
7,259
302
146
Percent
distri
bution
100
1Of the 143 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 79 furnished information on source of reference to court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
w
^
15
Some indication of the relationship of a court to the community
may be gained from data on cases of delinquent children showing the
proportion referred to the court by parents and relatives, other indi
viduals, and social agencies. These proportions differ from one court
to another because one court may be regarded as a general agency to
deal with all conduct problems, whereas another court is considered
as an agency to deal only with cases of marked conflict with public
authority. Furthermore, in some localities all children brought to
the attention of the police are referred to the court, whereas in other
localities many cases are dealt with directly by the police. More
than three fifths of the cases shown in table 12 were reported by the
police. Parents and relatives or other individuals referred one fifth
of the cases. School departments and probation officers were the
next most important sources of reference.22
Table IV (p. 43), which gives details for individual courts, shows
that the police referred more than four fifths of the cases dealt with
by six courts (Baltimore, M d.; Buffalo and Syracuse, N .Y .; Phila
delphia and Montgomery County, Pa.; and Milwaukee County,
W is.); parents, relatives, and other individuals reported more than
one third of the cases to another group of courts (Mobile County,
Ala.; Dade County, Fla.; Marion County, Ind.; Polk County, Iowa;
Caddo Parish, La.; and New York City, N .Y.). Great variation
was found in the extent to which school departments were reporting
cases to the courts. This probably reflects differences in the provision
made by the schools for dealing with conduct problems of school
children. In five courts (Lake County, Ind.; Rensselaer County and
Westchester County, N .Y .; and Mahoning County and Montgomery
County, Ohio), more than one fifth of the cases were referred by school
departments.
PLA CE O F C A R E P E N D IN G H E A R IN G O R D IS P O S IT IO N
Table 13 gives information as to the places in which delinquent
children were cared for pending hearing or disposition of their cases.
It also shows the differences in the type of the detention care in differ
ent age groups. Proportionately, detention was used more often in
cases of boys of 16 and 17 years of age, and in cases of girls of 18 years
and older.
The type of detention care given varied according to the facilities
available in the local community, detention homes or other institu
tions and jails or police stations being the places most frequently used.
Detention homes were used in two thirds of the cases of children whom
it was considered necessary to hold pending hearing or disposition of
their cases. Of the 41 courts serving cities or counties of 100,000 or
more population that reported detention care, 29 were using deten
tion homes. Although a number of courts reported the use of insti
tutions other than detention homes, including the institutional re
sources of private agencies, the majority of the cases in which children
were so cared for were reported by the New York City court, where a
cooperative arrangement exists with the Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Children. (See table V, p. 44.) Boarding homes were
« Some courts may have reported the person signing the petition rather than the person making the
original complaint, thus reporting probation officer” as the source in cases actually referred by others.
181169°—93--- 9
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
16
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
used for a small number of cases only, and more often for girls than
for boys. A jail or police station was used for detention in 8 percent
of the boys’ cases and in 2 percent of the girls’ cases.
T a b l e 13.— Place of care pending hearing or disposition and age of boys and of
girls dealt with in delinquency cases disposed of by 79 courts during 19311
Delinquency cases
Age of child
Place of detention care and sex of
child
Under 14
years
14 years,
under 16
' 16 years,
under 18
18 years
and over
Total
Per
Per
Per
Num cent
Num cent
Num cent
dis Num
dis
dis
ber tribu ber tribu ber tribu ber
tion
tion
tion
Age
not
Per re
cent port
dis
ed
tribu
tion
Total cases................................ 56,110 21,561
22,659
10,465
314
47,956 19,592
18,850
8,321
228
965
29,684 13,159
Detention care overnight or longer.. 16Ì944 6,014
n , i95
4,726
3,520
134
90
470
162
16,943
Boarding home or other fam-
6,014
29
86
11,420 4,268
3,902 1,627
69
1,338
21
197
7,158
100
(2)
41
71 4,652
27 2,091
1
316
57
(>)
I
Not reported whether detention care
7,157
i,m
3,520
100
90
100
162
1
13
65 2,352
148
29
4
889
1
118
(*)
67
4
25
3
2
50
3
34
1
2
56
3
38
1
1
98
33
30
100
1
1,328
419
497
75
4
333
8,154
1,969
3,809
2,144
86
146
4,120
Detention care overnight or longer— 3,726
1,195
700
1,729
1,932
1,100
1,001
35
50
61
43
3,725
700
100
1,932
100
1,000
100
50
100
97
2,482
986
90
70
17
439
235
4
5
2
63
34
42
1,200
630
23
37
2
62
33
1
2
35
775
111
62
27
4
78
11
5
3
41
1
7
1
82
2
14
2
Boarding home or other fam-
1
1
308
3
27
9
4
1
1
Not reported whether detention care
43
74
148
43
1
42
* Of the 143 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 79 (72 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished infor
mation for correlating place of detention care and age of child.
a Less than 1 percent.
i Includes cases of children cared for part of the time in detention homes and part of the time elsewhere,
but excludes cases of children also held in jails or police stations.
* Includes a few cases of children cared for part of the time in jails or police stations and part of the time
elsewhere.
4 Includes a few cases of children held in more than one place of care but in places other than detention
homes, jails, or police stations.
little difference was found in the types of detention care given to
boys and girls in the two age groups under 16 years, although deten
tion in a jail or police station was used more often for boys of 14 and
15 years of age than for girls of these ages (table 13). A smaller pro
portion of boys and girls of 16 and over than of those under 16 were
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
17
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
given care in detention homes and other institutions and a larger
proportion were held in jails or police stations.23
Jails or police stations were used for detention in 25 percent of the
cases of boys of 16 and 17 years old who needed detention, and in 38
percent of the cases of boys of 18 years and over. Comparison with
figures obtained in 1929 and 1930 shows that the proportion of cases
of boys of 16 years and over detained in jail has steadily decreased.
Changes or extension in detention facilities, which have made it
possible to hold children in other places than jails, have contributed
to this decrease. For example, in one court the number of cases of
children detained in jails or police stations was 201 less in 1931 than
in 1930 because of changes in the detention home, which provided
greater security against escape.
Some differences were found in the use of detention in cases of white
and colored children. Detention of the boy or girl away from home
pending hearing or disposition was thought to be necessary in a larger
proportion of the cases of colored children than of white children.
This greater use of detention for colored children is notable in every
age period. The types of detention facilities used for colored children
differed little from those used for white children. However, jail
detention was found proportionately less often in cases of colored
children than of white children, due perhaps to the smaller propor
tion of colored children than of white children who were 16 years of
age or more.
NU M BER OF T IM E S CH ILD RE N W ERE REFERRED TO COURT
A problem of special concern to juvenile courts is the extent to
which children are returned to the court for repeated delinquencies.
Some information on this subject is given in table 14. The 56,110
delinquency cases dealt with by the 79 courts that reported on this
point affected 49,460 children, 41,824 boys and 7,636 girls. More
than one fifth of these children (11,201) had been dealt with also in a
previous year. This number does not represent, however, the total
number of children who had been brought before the court more than
once, since 6,650 cases, 12 percent of the total number, represented
recurrences of delinquency during the jrear. It is impossible to tell
the actual number of children involved in these 6,650 cases, as a few
children may have been returned to the court several times during the
year for different offenses, whereas others may have been returned
only once.
T a b l e 14.— Previous court experience of boys and girls dealt with in delinquency
cases disposed of by 79 courts during 1931 °
Delinquency eases
Previous court experience
Total
Boys
Girls
56,110
47,956
8,154
38,259
11,201
6,650
31,753
10,071
6,132
6,506
1,130
518
o Of the 143 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 79 (72 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished infor
mation on previous court experience.
23 a few courts stated that a “ detention room” for children was located in the courthouse or in the Jail.
Detention in a special room of the courthouse was classified as “ other” , but detention in the same building
as the jail was classified as detention in jail.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
18
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
A larger percentage of the boys (24) than of the girls (15) had been
dealt with by the court in a previous year. A similar difference is
found in the percentage of cases of boys and of girls that involved
recurrences of delinquency during 1931. Thirteen percent of the boys'
cases, as compared with 6 percent of the girls' cases, represented
additional offenses committed during the year.
REASO NS FOR REFERENCE TO COURT
The character of the offenses for which children are brought into
court is shown in table 15. Information as to the reason for reference
was obtained from all the reporting courts. In nearly half of the
boys’ cases (45 percent) the boys were sent to court for some type of
stealing. In another large group of cases (30 percent) they had been
charged with committing acts of carelessness or mischief or with
traffic offenses, which also are due to carelessness or irresponsibility.24
It is generally accepted that the reasons for which boys are referred
to court represent delinquency problems different from those which
bring girls into court. The closely related offenses of running away,
being ungovernable, and sex offenses were reported in nearly two
thirds (63 percent) of the girls' cases, whereas stealing and acts of
carelessness and mischief were the reasons for reference to the court
in a much smaller proportion of the cases (23 percent). Although the
actual number of boys charged with truancy and running away
was larger than the number of girls, such cases constituted a much
smaller percentage of the boys’ cases. A larger percentage of the boys’
cases than of the girls’ cases involved injury to persons and traffic
violation, but the percentage of cases dealt with because of the use,
possession, or sale of liquor or drugs was the same for boys and for
girls.
T a b l e 15.— Reason for reference to court of boys and girls dealt with in delinquency
cases disposed of by 143 courts during 1931 °
Delinquency cases
Boys
Girls
Reason for reference to court
Percent
Percent
Number distribu Number distribu
tion
tion
8,602
SI, 278
Reason reported-------- ------ - ------ ------- ---------------- ------ ---------
51,190
100
8,564
Burglary or unlawful e n try ................................ .........
Hold-up....................................... - ..........................................
Other stealing..................... ...................................................
Act of carelessness or mischief - ------------- -------------------------Traffic violation_______________________________________
Truancy.................................................................... - ............
Running away.........................................................................
Ungovernable._____ ______________ — ................... .............
Sex offense..--------------- ------------- --------------------------------Injury to person_________________________ _____ ___ ____
Use, possession, or sale of liquor or drugs..............................
Other reason--------------------- ------------------------------------------
2,586
6,429
337
13, 763
13, 706
1,625
2,982
3,123
3,048
812
1,304
397
1,078
5
13
1
27
27
3
6
6
6
2
3
1
2
16
63
7
1,008
781
90
885
1,311
2,335
1,709
157
112
90
88
100
(6)
1
(")
38
• Ot the 143 courts only 139 reported boys’ cases and 110, girls’ cases.
* Less than 1 percent.
m in 1 Q27, 1928, and 1929 “ traffic violation” was included under “ acts of carelessness and mischief."
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
12
9
1
10
15
27
20
2
1
1
JTJVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 193i
a
^
19
Although an attempt is being made to secure uniformity in the use
of terms, the reasons reported for referring children to courts as
delinquents give a very incomplete picture of their behavior problems.
A child may have committed several offenses at or about the same time
and yet be referred to court for only one of them. The specific
offense for which he is referred may be much less serious than the
offenses discovered in the court by the social investigation. When
the case is investigated before the filing of a petition instead of after
ward, the formal charge is usually more accurate, but even in such
cases the offense stated in the complaint may reflect the desire of the
court to protect the child. For example, a girl may be charged with
incorrigibility instead of a sex offense, a boy with mischief instead of
stealing, or a charge of burglary and entry may be reduced to tres
passing and taking the property of another. These differences in the
attitudes and practices of the court are apparent in the proportion of
cases referred for various reasons by the different courts. (See tables
V I a and V I b , pp. 45 and 4 6 .)
Table 16 25 shows that the type of offenses committed by children
varies with their age, reflecting changing interests and pursuits. As
the largest number of cases were those of children 14 and 15 years
of age, the number of cases of each type of offense, except traffic viola
tions, was largest in this age group. Within each age group, however,
certain types of offenses were more usual than others. The offenses
committed by girls under 12 years of age correspond somewhat more
closely to those committed by boys of similar age than did the offenses
of older girls to those of older boys. As would be expected, a larger
proportion of the children under 12 years of age than of those in any
other age group were brought before the court for acts of carelessness
and mischief. Stealing was the major offense in boys’ cases in all
age group's except under 10 years, although the type of stealing
changed as the boys grew older. Older boys were more often charged
with automobile stealing and with stealing or attempted stealing from
a person, accompanied by intimidation or violence, whereas other
types of stealing, including minor thefts and shoplifting, were reported
more often in cases of younger children. The percentage of cases of
girls who ran away, were ungovernable, or committed sex offenses
was much larger in the older age groups, the charge of sex offense
being used most often in cases of girls of 18 years of age or over.
Table 17 shows the types of offenses reported in cases of white and
colored children. As has been shown on page 11, a larger proportion
of the colored children than of the white children were under 14 years
of age, and it is probable that this difference in age distribution is
reflected in the offenses reported. A slightly larger percentage of the
cases of colored boys (59) than of cases of white boys (52) were
referred for “ other” stealing and acts of carelessness or mischief,
offenses that are proportionately more often reported in cases of
younger than of older boys. In the majority of cases of colored boys,
however, “ other” stealing had been the charge made, whereas in cases
of white boys charges of acts of carelessness or mischief predominated.
Automobile stealing and traffic violation, both of which are offenses
of older boys, were reported in a much smaller percentage of cases
of colored boys than of white boys. In girls’ cases a similar situation
S5The totals in table 15 do not agree with those in tables 16 and 17, as detailed information was avail*
able for only 79 courts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
20
JTJVENILE-COTJKT STATISTICS, 1931
is found. Twenty-seven percent of the cases of colored girls, as com
pared with only 18 percent of the cases of white girls, involved “ other ”
stealing or acts of carelessness or mischief, offenses with which girls
under 14 were more often charged. A larger proportion of colored
girls than of white girls were referred to the court because of being
ungovernable, and a smaller proportion were referred for sex offenses.
T a b l e 16.— Reason for reference to court of boys and girls of each age period dealt
with in delinquency cases disposed of by 79 courts during 1931 1
Delinquency cases
Age of child
Reason for reference to court and sex
of child
Total
10
Under years,
10 years under
12
12
years,
under
14
14
years,
under
16
16
years,
under
18
18
years
and
over
Age not
re
ported
Total cases---------------------------- 56,110
2,832
6,319
12,410
22,659
10,465
314
1,111
47,956
2,591
5,911
11,090
18,850
8,321
228
965
2,485
¿046
305
12,750
12,594
1,605
2,865
3,018
2,911
748
1,223
26
289
5
641
1,083
97
130
203
25
65
57
805
16
1,760
1,957
5
281
319
393
67
165
312
1,565
53
3,426
3,214
29
537
632
684
134
302
1,279
2,466
126
4,904
4,605
370
1,339
1,182
1,183
282
474
767
835
89
1,766
1,421
1,150
594
506
399
224
168
17
18
12
53
41
29
4
15
12
8
4
27
68
4
200
273
22
13
234
37
8
45
394
924
88
20
7
5
67
14
28
157
17
131
462
47
214
188
9
6
7
24
3
8,154
241
408
1,320
3,809
2,144
86
146
4
12
2
153
117
■ 62
282
304
529
583
22
1
4
2
12
1
2
14
21
37
1
13
27
2
7
23
30
34
3
45
27
2
1
4
1
3
1
2
Boys’ cases---------------1----------Automobile stealing— ........................
Burglary or unlawful entry...... .........
Hold-up------------- ------ ——...............
Other stealing-.......... .........
--Act of carelessness or mischief---------Traffic violation-------------- -------------Truancy......... .............- ......................
Running away------------------------------Ungovernable-------------------------------Sex offense.-.------- -------------—
Injury to person--------------- .-----------Use, possession, or sale of liquor or
drugs--------------—
Other reason--------------------------------Reason not reported-.........................
Girls’ cases--------------------------Automobile stealing..'--------------------Burglary or unlawful entry------------Hold-up..............................................
Other stealing------------------------------Act of carelessness or mischief............
Traffic violation-.................................
Truancy----------- ------------ -------------Running away....................................
Ungovernable_____________________
Sex offense----------------- -----------------Injury to person---------------- ----------Use, possession, or sale of liquor or
drugs— ..------------------------ ---------Other reason--------------------------------Reason not reported-----------------------
921
44
89
94
86
90
858
1,276
2,232
1,579
151
19
11
39
19
13
22
38
87
42
18
4
94
168
380
174
37
9
19
2
380
288
21
432
718
1,146
690
57
110
75
38
2
1
2
2
2
14
12
5
45
27
25
62
14
1
234
3
1
’Of the 143 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 79 (72 of which reported girls' cases) furnished infor
mation for correlating reason for reference to court and age of child.
A smaller percentage of colored children than of white children
were referred for truancy. Three fourths of the cases of colored chil
dren were reported by nine courts.2® It is probabh) that the small
amount of reported truancy among colored children is influenced by
the methods of dealing with truancy problems in these nine localities.
Children had been referred to the court for truancy in only 4 percent
of the cases reported by these courts, as compared with 6 percent of
the cases reported by the entire number of courts. The development
of special facilities in the schools for constructive work with truants,
» District of Columbia; Fulton County, Ga.; Orleans Parish, La.;. Baltimore, M dq Wayne County,
Mich.; New York City, N .Y .; Franklin and Hamilton Counties, Ohio; and Philadelphia, Pa. Each of
these eovrts reported more than 400 cases of colored children.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
21
JUVENILE-COUKT STATISTICS, 1931
and the practice in some courts of proceeding against the parents
rather than of dealing with the child, are measures that reduce the
number of children brought to court on the charge of truancy. It is
possible of course that in some of these communities less attention is
paid to the absence of colored children from school.
T a b l e 17.— Reason for reference to court and color of boys and girls dealt with in
delinquency cases disposed of by 79 courts during 1981 1
Delinquency cases
Reason for reference to court and sex
of child
Total
White children
Colored children
Children
whose
color
Percent
Percent
was not
Number distri- Number distri- Number
reported
button
button
bution
Total cases...... ......... . ................
56,110
45,206
10, 888
Boys’ cases__________________
47,956
38,959
8,982
Reason reported___________________
47,868
100
38,896
100
8,957
100
2,485
6,046
305
12,750
12,594
1,605
2,865
3,018
2,911
748
1,223
5
13
1
27
26
3
6
6
6
2
3
2,171
5,047
210
9,628
10,420
1,521
2,455
2,512
2,352
649
843
6
13
1
25
27
4
6
6
6
2
2
314
999
95
3,121
2,162
84
409
506
559
99
379
4
11
1
35
24
1
5
6
6
1
4
394
924
1
2
321
767
1
2
73
157
1
2
Automobile stealing...................... .
Burglary or unlawful entry______
Hold-up_______________________
Other stealing.................................
Act of carelessness or mischief____
Traffic violation________________
Truancy_______________________
Running away_________________
Ungovernable__________________
Sex offense_____________________
Injury to person______________ _
Use, possession, or sale of liquor
or drugs______________________
Other reason________________ i___
Reason not reported________________
88
63
25
Girls’ cases___________________
8,154
6,247
1,906
Reason reported......... ..........................
8,116
Automobile stealing_____________
Burglary or unlawful entry______
Hold-up................................. ........
Other stealing.... ........... ............ .
Act of carelessness or mischief........
Traffic violation_________________
Truancy_____ __________________
Running away__________________
Ungovernable___________________
Sex offense______________________
Injury to person.................... 1____
Use, possession, or sale of liquor
or drugs______________________
Other reason___ ;________________
16
62
6
921
740
90
858
1,276
2,232
1,579
151
Reason not reported_________________
38
110
75
100
(0
(0
6,224
11
9
1
11
16
28
19
2
15
49
2
677
472
86
747
1,051
1,636
1,297
60
1
1
82
50
1
23
100
(9
00
1,891
li
8
1
12
17
26
21
1
1
13
4
244
267
4
111
225
596
282
91
1
1
28
25
1
16
15
15
1
12
1
1
1
100
(2)
(0
00
1
1
13
14
1
6
12
32
15
5
1
1
15
«J iiU S E 143 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 79 (72 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished
information fox correlating reason for reference to court and color of child.
8 Less than 1 percent.
D IS P O S IT IO N S
The dispositions made by the court in boys’ and girls’ delinquency
cases and the extent to which such cases were dealt with officially or
unofficially are shown in table 18.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
22
J T JY E N IL E -C O U B T S T A T IS T IC S , 1931
T a b l e 18.— Disposition and manner o f handling hoys' and girls’ delinquency cases
disposed of by 148 courts during 1931 1
Delinquency cases
Disposition of case and ses of child
Unofficial *
Official
Total
Percent
Percent
Percent
Number distribu- Number distribu- Number distribution
tion
tion
Total cases------
59,880
38,060
Boys’ cases—
51,278
32,688
Disposition reported.
Child kept under supervision of court.
Probation officer supervising.........
Agency or individual supervising..
Under temporary care of an in
stitution_____________________
Child not kept under supervision of
court____________________________
Case dismissed or adjusted---------Committed to:
State institution for delin
quents___________________
Other institution for delin
quents___________________
Penal institution___________
Other institution___________
Agency or individual------------
21,820
18,590
51,264
100
32,676
100
18,588
100
16,391
14,849
849
32
29
2
14,272
12,830
798
44
39
2
2,119
2,019
51
11
1
0
693
1
644
2
49
0
31,999
22,854
62
45
15,87Ì
9,388
49
29
16,128
13,466
87
72
108
389
I
2
1
5
157
426
1,334
248
1
2
7
1
8
341
2
5
6
(3)
(3)
Referred without commitment to:
Institution_________________
Agency or individual........ .
192
613
Referred to other court......... ......
Restitution, fine, or costs ordered.
Runaway returned........... ...........
Other disposition of case________
Case held open without further action.
1
84
224
375
1,903
1,487
'369
1
4
3
1
218
1,477
153
121
2,874
6
2,533
(8)
1
0
1
0
0
2
12
Disposition not reported-----------------------
3,230
5,372
Girls’ cases_____________________
8, 602
Disposition reported----------------------------
8,600
100
5,371
100
3,229
100
Child kept under supervision of court.
Probation officer supervising........
Agency or individual supervising.
Under temporary care of an insti
tution—_____________________
3,036
2,559
130
35
30
2
2,601
2,177
103
48
41
2
435
382
27
13
12
1
347
4
321
6
26
1
court______________________
Case dismissed or adjusted..
Committed to:
State institution for
quents___________ —
Other institution for delin
quents_____________
Penal institution-------Other institution-------Agency or individual—
5,059
2,819
59
33
2,435
942
45
18
2,624
1,877
81
58
92
264
3
1
9
(3)
89
12
9
2
3
104
320
1
4
56
Referred to other court----Restitution, fine, or costs ordered.
Runaway returned.......... .
Other disposition of case..
92
68
332
84
1
1
4
1
37
43
76
29
1
1
1
1
55
25
256
55
2
1
8
2
Case held open without further action.
505
6
335
6
170
5
Institution....................
Agency or individual-..
Disposition not reported-------------
2
1 Of the 143 courts, only 139 reported boys’ cases and HO, girls’ cases,
a 69 courts reported unofficial cases,
a Less than 1 percent.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
1
0
1
8
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
23
The dispositions used by the courts have been classified into three
major groups: (1) The court retained responsibility for the child and
provided some form of care to assist him in overcoming his conduct
difficulties; (2) the case was dismissed, responsibility for care of the
children was transferred to an institution, agency, or individual, or
some other final settlement of the case was made; (3) the case was
held open so that the child could be brought back to the court if
further difficulties developed, although such difficulties were not an
ticipated. The use of these three types of disposition varied greatly
m the individual courts. (See tables V I I I a and V I I I b , pp. 48 and
50.) The court retained responsibility for only a small proportion of
the children in a few localities, notably in Orleans Parish, La •27
Baltimore, M d.; Buffalo, N .Y .; Philadelphia, Pa.; and Spokane
County, Wash. On the other hand, in a few localities, such as
Mercer County, N.J.; Syracuse, N .Y.; and Allegheny County, Pa.,
the court retained responsibility for the children in the majority of
the cases. Holding the case open without anticipation of further
action was used more often in Fulton County, G a.; Marion County,
Ind.; Orleans Parish, La.; and Hennepin County, Minn., than in
other localities.
Table 18 shows that in about one third of the cases the children
had remained under supervision of the court. In the largest propor
tion of these cases the children had been under care of probation
officers in their own homes or other family homes. In the remain
ing cases in this group immediate care was given by an institution or
agency. Reports of cases dismissed from supervision by the courts
(see p. 35) show that in many cases in which the children were
receiving care from an institution or agency while the court retained
responsibility, the children after a period of temporary care, usually
in an institution,28 were returned to their homes under care of pro
bation officers. In 62 percent of the boys’ cases and in 59 percent
of the girls’ cases the courts did not retain responsibility for the
children. The majority of these children were dismissed, usually
after a warning had been given or some adjustment of the difficulty
had been made.
Dismissals, either with or without warning or adjustment, and
orders of restitution, fine, or costs 29 were proportionately more fre
quent in boys’ cases than in girls’ cases, whereas commitments or
referrals to institutions or agencies were more frequent in girls’ cases.
Marked differences are found in the types of disposition used in
official and unofficial cases. In boys’ cases 72 percent of the unoffi
cial cases as compared with 29 percent of the official cases were dis
missed. A similar situation is found in cases of girls, 58 percent of
the unofficial cases as compared with 18 percent of the official cases
being dismissed. As the majority of cases of children referred but
not committed to institutions and of cases of runaways returned to
their homes were dealt with unofficially, these dispositions were pro
portionately more often used in unofficial cases.
« Although no cases were reported as retained under the supervision of the court in Orleans Parish
La., children had been under supervision of probation officers in a number of cases classified as being “ held
open without further action.”
is A large proportion of the children placed under care of an agency while remaining under supervision
of the court were cared for in an institution maintained by the agency.
” fh e relative use of orders for restitution or for payment of fine or costs was available only for the 79
courts reporting separately on these two types of orders. Of the total group of 1,839 cases of boys and 64
cases of girls m which orders for restitution, fines, and costs were made by these courts, payment of fines
or costs was required in 1,014 cases of boys and 35 cases of girls.
181169°—33---- 4
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
24
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
Although more than a third of the delinquency cases had been dealt
with unofficially, less than half of the courts reported unofficial cases,
20 of these being courts serving areas of 100,000 or more population.
(See table VII, p. 47.) In many of these courts the majority of the
cases reported were unofficial; seven courts (Franklin County, Hamil
ton County, Mahoning County, and Montgomery County, Ohio;
Multnomah County, Oreg.; Philadelphia, Pa.; and Milwaukee
County, Wis.) had dealt with 68 to 96 percent of their cases in this
way.
#
,
. . . . .
Many factors are taken into consideration in making disposition of
a child’s case. The particular needs of a child, his home situation,
and the character and number of his previous delinquencies are of
major importance in deciding upon the treatment that is needed.
Information is not available, nowever, for statistical study of these
factors. The relationship of the age of the child and of his immediate
offense to the disposition made by the court are shown in tables 19
and 20.30
It is to be expected that the dispositions of cases of children under
12 years of age, especially those of children under 10, would be some
what different from the dispositions made of cases of older children.
Table 19 31 shows that a larger proportion of cases of younger children
were dismissed after warning or adjustment of the difficulty or were
held open without further action being anticipated. Supervision by
probation officers was used more often in cases of children between
12 and 16 years of age than in those of children of other age groups.
The percentage of cases of children of these age groups committed or
referred to an institution was also slightly larger than in other age
groups. Further analysis of the figures reveals that the proportion
of children committed to State institutions for delinquent children
and to penal institutions increased steadily as the ages of the children
increased. Ninety boys and one girl had been committed to penal
institutions. The ages of 20 of these children were not given, but of
the remainder 16 32 were under 16 years of age at the time of commit
ment. Orders of restitution, fines, or costs were used in about the
same proportion of cases in all age groups. Return of runaways and
referral to another court constituted a large proportion of the cases
classified as “ other” dispositions. Referral to another court was
used more often in cases of older boys and girls, which accounts for the
larger proportion of “ other” dispositions in cases of children 16 years
of age or older.
.
Table 20 shows the relation between the types of offenses committed
by boys and girls and the dispositions of their cases. The majority of
the boys placed under supervision of probation officers or committed
or referrred to institutions, agencies, or individuals had been referred
to the court in cases of stealing. The majority of the girls given these
types of treatment had been charged with the closely allied offenses
of running away, being ungovernable, or sex offenses. As would be
expected, a large majority of the orders for restitution, fines, or costs
were made in cases of stealing or acts of carelessness or mischief.
Return of runaways and referral to another court are the most im80 The totals in table 18 do not agree with those in tables 19 and 20, as detailed information for these tables
was available for only 79 courts.
.
. . ' . '
,
.
...__ .
si In tables 19, 20, and 21 dispositions have been grouped so as to show the type of care given without
regard to retention of responsibility by the court.
„
_ . . ...
. TT. . , „„„„
« Caddo Parish, La., 10 cases; Norfolk, Va., 3 cases; New York City, 2 cases: First District, Utah, 1 case.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
25
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S , 1931
portant of the dispositions classified as “ other.” Of the 426 cases
of boys and girls referred to other courts, 239 had been referred for
stealing.
T a b l e 19.
Disposition o f cases of boys and of girls o f each age period dealt with in
delinquency cases disposed of by 79 courts during 1931 1
Delinquency cases
Age of child
Disposition of case and sex of child
Total
10
Under years,
10 years under
12
12
years,
under
14
14
years,
under
16
16
years,
under
18
18
years
and
over
Age
not re
ported
Total cases__________________
56,110
2,832
6,319
12,410
22,659
10,465
314
1,111
Boys’ cases__________________
47,956
2,591
5,911
11,090
18,850
8,321
228
965
1,669
526
3,180
1,555
5,402
3,378
9,181
5,694
4,129
2,247
109
44
460
143
122
518
1,084
2,080
742
21
76
98
117
59
230
265
161
2
410
455
359
2
651
599
640
5
208
354
640
1
7
12
35
24
37
221
8,154
241
408
1,320
3,809
2,144
86
146
3,180
2,446
167
37
211
114
531
409
1,284
1,300
893
539
38
15
56
32
1,447
16
45
212
777
357
15
25
652
64
463
2
15
2
4
22
4
12
106
13
49
220
18
209
1
170
17
167
1
7
2
9
12
8
13
Dismissed, adjusted, or held open
without further action_______ ____ 24,130
Supervised by probation officer.......... 13,587
Committed or referred to an institu
tion....... . . . . . ................................
4,643
Committed or referred to an agency or
individual......................................... 1,628
Restitution, fine, or costs ordered___
1,839
Other disposition._____ _______ *___ 2,115
Disposition not reported___________
14
Girls’ cases__________________
Dismissed, adjusted, or held open
without further action____ ____ _
Supervised by probation officer.........
Committed or referred to an institu
tion________ _____ ______________
Committed or referred to an agency or
individual....................... .......... ......
Restitution, fine, or costs ordered___
Other disposition................................
Disposition not reported___________
1 Of the 143 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 79 (72 of which reported girls" cases) furnished infor
mation for correlating disposition of case and age of child.
Some differences in the types of dispositions reported in cases of
white and colored children are shown in table 21. Cases of white
boys were more frequently disposed of by dismissal or indefinite
continuances than were those of colored boys, and reference or
commitment to an institution or to the care of an agency or indi
vidual was more frequent in the cases of colored boys. The opposite
situation is to be found in girls’ cases, dismissal or indefinite contin
uance being more frequent and agency or institutional care less fre
quent in cases of colored girls than of white girls. Return of runaways
and referral to other courts included in “ other” dispositions were used
proportionately less often in cases of colored children than of white
children.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e 20. — Disposition and reason for reference to court of boys’ and girls’ delinquency cases disposed o f by 79 courts during 1931 1
^0
Delinquency cases
Reason for reference to court
Disposition of case and sex of child
Total
Act of
careless
ness or
mischief
Traffic
viola
tion
Truancy Running
away
Ungov
ernable
Sex of
fense
Injury
to per
son
Use, pos
session, Other Reason
or sale reason not re
ported
of liquor
or drugs
Total cases................................... ........... ...................
56,110
22,591
13,334
1,695
3,723
4,294
5,143
2,327
1,374
504
999
126
Boys’ cases..................................................................
47,956
21,586
12,594
1,605
2,865
3,018
2,911
748
1,223
394
924
88
Dismissed, adjusted, or held open without further action.
Supervised by probation officer.............. ...... .....................
Committed or referred to an institution------ ----------------Committed or referred to an agency or individual_______
24,130
13, 587
4,643
1,628
1,839
2,115
14
8,329
8,486
2,801
910
671
384
5
9,749
1,490
263
157
868
65
2
1,190
168
5
16
99
127
1,250
968
484
133
19
10
1
661
511
299
109
5
1,433
1,075
1,071
564
176
13
10
2
263
309
90
54
18
14
712
301
86
17
87
20
186
123
24
21
31
9
687
109
22
33
28
43
28
51
5
2
2
2
8,154
1,005
740
90
858
1,276
2,232
1,579
151
110
75
38
3,180
2,446
1,447
'552
64
463
2
399
394
107
51
26
28
564
112
17
19
21
7
78
3
480
272
61
39
1
230
380
256
83
786
730
513
180
4
19
473
445
456
146
88
44
5
6
6
2
35
41
13
12
38
10
8
14
3
2
9
15
Girls’ cases— ................................... - ................... —
Dismissed, adjusted, or held open without further action.
Supervised by probation officer................................... ......
Committed or referred to an agency or individual----------
1
3
5
5
327
59
9
u
i
2
1 Of the 143 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 79 (72 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished information for correlating disposition of case and reason for reference to court.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JTJYENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
Stealing
27
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S , 1 9 3 1
T a b l e 21 .— Disposition of case and color of boys and girls dealt with in delinquency
cases disposed of by 79 courts during 19S1 1
Delinquency cases
Colored chil
dren
Total
Chil
dren
whose
color
Percent was not
Num Percent
distri Num
distri report
ber
ber
bution
bution
ed
Total cases______________________________
56,110
45,206
10,888
Boys’ cases..................... ............... ............ ......
47,956
38,959
8,982
47,942
38,949
Dismissed, adjusted, or held open without further
action....... ...........................................
24,130
Supervised by probation officer............ ............ .
13, 587
Committed or referred to an institution....... ......... 4,643
Committed or referred to an agency or individual. 1,628
Restitution, fine, or costs ordered________
1,839
Other disposition_________________ _____ ______
2,115
19,965
11,090
3,549
1,016
1,565
1,764
White children
Disposition of case and sex of child
Disposition reported_______________________
Disposition not reported__________ ______ ____
Girls’ cases......................................... .............
Disposition reported.............. ....................................
Dismissed, adjusted, or held open without further
action_____ ____ __________ ______ _____
Supervised by probation officer .................... .
Committed or referred to an institution.............
Committed or referred to an agency or individual .
Restitution, fine, or costs ordered________ _
Other disposition____ ____ ________________
Disposition not reported__________________________
•
16
15
100
8,978
100
15
51
28
9
3
4
5
4,150
2,497
1,094
612
274
351
46
28
12
7
3
4
15
14
10
4
8,154
6,247
1,906
8,152
6,246
100
1,905
100
1
3,180,
2,446'
1,447
552
64
463
2,366
1,874
1,162
417
37
390
38
30
19
7
1
6
813
572
285
135
27
73
43
30
15
7
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
i Of the 143 courts reporting delinquency cases, only 79 (72 of which reported girls’ cases) furnished infor
mation for correlating disposition of case and color of child.
DEPENDENCY AND NEGLECT CASES
An analysis of dependency and neglect cases brought before 16 83
courts serving areas of 100,000 or more population, which had re
ported such cases to the Children’s Bureau during a 5-year period,
shows that little change has occurred in the total number of depend
ency and neglect cases that had been dealt with. In a few courts
there had been a slight but steady decrease in cases during the period
and in others a slight increase. For the 16 courts the figures for the
five years beginning with 1927 were 9,744 cases, 10,451 cases, 10,441
cases, 10,797 cases, and 10,518 cases.
In some of the smaller courts reporting cases in 1931, especially
those serving rural areas, most of the court work was concerned with
dependency problems. The large number of dependency cases in
most of the small Alabama counties was due to the unofficial cases
dealt with by the county welfare workers who also served as proba
tion officers of the juvenile court. In most courts serving areas hav
ing 100,000 population or more and including cities which have a
number of social agencies caring for children, the major activity of
33 Bridgeport, Conn.; District of Columbia; Lake and Marion Counties, Ind.; Hennepin and Ramsey
Counties, Minn.; Buffalo, Erie County, New York City, and Westchester County, N.Y.; Hamilton and
Mahoning Counties, Ohio; Montgomery County and Philadelphia, Pa.; Norfolk, Va.; and Pierce County,
Wash. Franklin County, Ohio, was omitted from this summary as unofficial cases were not reporto'ii
before 1930.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
28
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
the court was in connection with delinquency cases, but in four such
areas (Allegheny County, Pa.; San Francisco County, Calif.; Dade
County, Fla.; and Westchester County, N.Y.) the number of depend
ency and neglect cases exceeded the number of delinquency cases.
(See table I, p. 38.)
In many cases brought to the juvenile court, neglect and unsatis
factory conduct are closely allied. Whether such cases will be dealt
with as delinquency or as dependency and neglect depends upon the
attitude of the court. One illustration of this is the increasing use of
neglect rather than delinquency charges in Westchester County,
N.Y., which has had some influence on the steadily dropping delin
quency rate in this county, and the consequently increasing propor
tion of cases designated as neglect. The large number of dependency
and neglect cases in Pittsburgh and San Francisco illustrates two
different situations that may be found also in other courts. The
juvenile court of Allegheny County, Pa., has undertaken a child
caring program for dependent children, including placement in
family homes. In 871 of the 909 cases of dependent children dealt
with by this court in 1931 the child was retained under the care of the
probation officer. This public child-caring division is a separate
administrative unit but is still maintained under the jurisdiction of
the court. A large majority of the dependent children dealt with
in 842 cases in San Francisco County were brought before the court
in order to obtain county funds for their care. The statutes pro
vide that the court may order the county to pay for the support of
any ward of the court needing care. This provision enables the court
to provide county funds for the care of children when custody is
given to private child-caring agencies. The necessity for court com
mitment in order to obtain county funds for the support of children
similarly affects the number of dependent children dealt with by the
courts in counties having a county children’s home or a public wel
fare agency that lacks authority to accept custody of children without
commitment, as, for example, in Milwaukee and the District of
Columbia. Limitation in county funds may be one of the reasons
that no great increases have taken place in dependency cases brought
to the juvenile court in 1931.
C H IL D R E N IN V O L V E D I N T H E C A S E S
AGE, COLOR, AND NATIVITY
Table 22 gives information as to the age of children dealt with in
dependency and neglect cases by 140 courts. Nearly as many girls
as boys were dealt with in these dependency and neglect cases, and
the children were distributed fairly evenly in the age groups under
14 years. The number who were 14 and 15 years of age was slightly
smaller than the number in the lower age groups, and the number
16 years of age or older was very small.
Information as to color and nativity was available for only 77
courts. As is shown in table 23, the great majority of the children
concerned in dependency and neglect cases were white. In more than
half of the cases the children were white native born of native parent
age, the next largest group being white native born of mixed or foreign
parentage. The foreign-born group was small. The character of the
population served by the court affects the number of cases of children
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
29
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S , 19 31
belonging in these different groups that are brought before the court.
Table IX (p. 52), which gives the details for individual courts, shows
that nearly two thirds of the cases of foreign-born children were
reported by New York City. One or both of the parents were foreign
born in more than 50 percent of the cases of white children reported
by 6 courts (Bridgeport, Conn.; Lake County, Ind.; Wayne County,
M ich.; and Monroe County, Westchester County, and New York City,
T a b l e 22. — Age of children dealt with in dependency and neglect cases disposed of
by 140 courts during 1981
Dependency and
neglect cases
Age of child
Number
Total cases___________________________________________
Percent
distri
bution
22,317
Aee reported. _ . ___ _ _ . . . .
Under 2 years_______________________ _____________________________________
2 years, under 4_____ ______ _____ ___________________________
4 years, under 6___________________________________
6 years, under 8................................................................................... .......................
8years, under 10_________________________ _____________ ___________________
10 years, under 12.. _ _ ___ _______ .
12 years, under 14____________________________________ ___________
14 years, under 16________________________________________
16 years and over...____________________________________
Age not reported........................................................... ............... ................
21,746
100
2,750
2,502
2,748
2,962
3,018
2,947
2,406
1,961
452
13
12
13
14
14
14
11
9
2
571
T a b l e 23.— Color, nativity, and parent nativity o f boys and girls dealt with in
dependency and neglect cases disposed o f by 77 courts during 1981 1
Dependency and neglect
cases
Color, nativity, and parent nativity of child
Total
Total cases______________________ .
Native__________________________________
Native parentage______________________________
Foreign or mixed parentage_________________________________
Parentage not reported -.1 ___________________________
Foreign born______________________ ___________________
Nativity not reported___________________________________________
Negro_____ ___ ____ ___________________________
Other colored_____________________________________________
Color not reported____________________________________
Boys
Girls
21,613
11,197
18,642
9,605
9,037
18,092
9,327
8,765
11,499
5,817
776
5,916
3,019
392
5,583
2,798
384
279
271
144
134
135
137
2,886
84
1
1,545
47
1,341
37
1
10,416
1
Of the 140 courts reporting dependency and neglect cases, only 77 (75 of which reported girls' cases)
furnished information on color and nativity.
The cases of colored children reported included 2,886 cases of Negro
children and 84 cases of colored children of other races. Marked
variation may be found in different localities in the extent to which
dependent Negro children are brought into court. (See table IX ,
p. 52.) Ten courts serving areas in which 10 percent or more of the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
30
JT JV E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S , 1931
population were Negroes reported at least 100 cases of dependency
and neglect. In six of these areas (District of Columbia; Marion
County, Ind.; Orleans Parish, La.; Baltimore, M d .; Franklin County,
Ohio; and Philadelphia, Pa.) the percentage of Negro children brought
before the court was larger, in some courts twice as large, as the per
centage of Negroes in the general population. In the four remaining
areas (Dade County, Fla.; Fulton County, G a.; Caddo Parish, La.;
and Norfolk, Va.) decidedly less use was made of the court for depend
ent Negro children in proportion to the number of Negroes in the area.
PLACE CHILD W A S LIVING W H E N REFERRED TO COURT, AND MARITAL STATUS OF
PARENTS
More than three fourths of the children dealt with in dependency
and neglect cases for which information as to the whereabouts of the
child was reported were living in their own homes when brought to
court. Table 24 shows that most of these children were living with
both their own parents or with their mother, a smaller number living
with the father or with one parent and a step-parent. In most of the
4,482 cases of children not in their own homes, the child had been
living with other family groups, often with relatives.
T a b l e 24. — Marital status of parents, according to place child was living when
referred to court, in dependency and neglect cases disposed of by 77 courts during
1931 1
Dependency and neglect cases
Place child was living when referred to court
In own home
Marital status of parents
Total
Total
Total cases.
Married and living together.
Divorced_________________
Mother deserting father----Father deserting mother----Separated for other reasons..
Both parents dead________
Father dead— ....................
Mother dead........................
Not married to each other..
Other status.................... —
Status not reported_______
21,613 14,934
6,364
1,130
707
1,665
3,635
579
1,623
2,502
1,885
100
2,423
856
613
1,448
2,661
In
Not
In
In
other insti
With
re
With With father
fam
port
tu other
both moth and With With ily
place
ed
tion
father
moth
own er and step
home
par step moth er only only
father
ents
er
5,288
2
454
181
32
1
1
227
lj 598
1,099
3
73
252
83
1
717
239
99
212
74
163
801
504
184
750
541
75
123
51
40
18
36
109
43
33
107
224
17
39
12
15
7
1
1
Z
15
54
10
5
27
25
42
6
5
16
5 ___
27 2,161
533
61
1,431
1,837
1,154
32
206
3
12
11
2,197
5,977 2,963 3,526
108
552
16
823
1,392
57
2
13
37
924
1 Of the 140 courts reporting dependency and neglect cases, only 77 furnished information on marital
status of parents and place child was living when referred to court.
The marital status of the parents of the children is also shown m
table 24. The parents in 28 percent of the cases were married and
living together. In 37 percent they were separated for vario u
reasons, divorce and desertion being the reasons in about one half of
these cases. Among other reasons for separation were physical or
mental disability or imprisonment of one of the parents. In 25 per
cent of the cases one or both of the parents were dead, and m 10
percent they were not married to each other.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
31
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S , 19 31
In 42 percent of the cases in which the parents were not married
to each other, and in 36 percent of those in which the mother only
was dead, the children were receiving care away from their own
homes when brought into court. Nearly half of the children under
care of institutions belonged in these two groups. Care of children
away from their own homes had been given also in about a fourth of
the cases in which the parents were divorced (24 percent) or separated
for other reasons (27 percent). Only a small percentage of the
children had been separated from the remaining parent in cases in
which one parent had deserted or the father had died.
REASO N S FO R REFERENCE AND SOURCES O F REFERENCE T O COURT
Several children in a family may be referred to court at the same
time and for the same reason. The families represented, as well as
the children’s cases, are shown in table 25, each family being counted
only once for each time it was dealt with by the court on a new com
plaint involving one or more of the children. Only cases dealt with
by the 77 courts that reported detailed information are included in
table 25, as information as to families was not available for the 704
cases reported by the remaining 63 of the 140 courts reporting de
pendency and neglect cases. These family figures, however, are
probably representative, as comparison of children’s cases reported
by the 77 courts and by the entire 140 courts shows that the per
centage distribution of reasons for reference of cases was practically
identical in both groups.
T a b l e 2 5 .— Reason fo r reference to court and fam ilies represented in dependency
and neglect cases disposed o f by 77 courts during 1981 1
Dependency and neglect cases
Families represented
Reason for reference to court
Total
cases
Number
Total cases......................................................................................
Reason reported______________________ ________________
Without adequate care or support from parent or guardian_______
Abandonment or desertion................... ................ ........................
Abuse or cruel treatment......................................................
Living under conditions injurious to morals....................................
Physically handicapped and in need of public care_____ _______
Other reasons____ ________________ I______
Reason not reported_________________________________
Percent
distribu
tion
21,613
11,353
21,607
11,349
100
16,735
1,352
465
2,271
759
25
8,516
762
284
1,104
672
11
75
7
3
10
6
6
4
(>)
i Of the 140 courts reporting dependency and neglect cases, only 77 furnished information on number of
families represented.
1 Less than 1 percent.
Two of the classifications shown in table 25 (abuse or cruel treat
ment and living under conditions injurious to morals) designate
situations almost universally called neglect. Twelve percent of the
families were brought into court on these charges. The classifica
tions “ without adequate care or support from parent or guardian” ,
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
32
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S , 19 31
and “ abandonment or desertion” , which were used for 82 percent of
the cases, seem to have been variously interpreted by the different
courts. Table X (p. 53), which gives details for individual courts,
shows that nearly half of the total number of cases of abandonment
and desertion were reported by Philadelphia. It is probable that in
other courts many cases involving desertion were classified under the
more general heading, as the immediate problem was lack of support.
The New York City court having jurisdiction over neglect cases only
reported 1,779 cases without adequate care or support (88 percent
of its total cases) and 26 cases of abandonment or desertion (1 per
cent), whereas the Philadelphia court responsible for both neglect
and dependency cases reported 1,192 cases under the first of these
classifications (68 percent of its total cases) and 358 cases (20 per
cent) under the second. Physical handicaps of one or more children
was the reason for 6 percent of the families coming before the court.
The following list shows the number of families referred to the
courts by different individuals or agencies:
Number
of families
Source of reference
Total
11, 353
Parents or relatives________________________________________
3, 996
Social agency--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 ^ 682
Individual_______ ____________________
i ( 205
P olice-------------------------------------------------------------------------- H i l l
069
Probation officer_____________________________
803
School departm ent___ ______________________________________
409
Other sources______________________________________________
92
Source not reported________________________________________
97
It is to be expected that parents or relatives and social agencies
would refer most of the dependency and neglect cases. In some
localities the court prefers to have such cases investigated first by a
social agency so that only those actually needing court action are
brought to court. In other localities the court undertakes the initial
work and receives complaints from any interested persons, including
parents and relatives.
D IS P O S IT IO N S
In more than a third of the dependency cases, as shown in table 26,
the court assumed responsibility for the continued care and super
vision of the child. Table X I (p. 54) shows, however, that the
policies as to retaining responsibility varied greatly in the individual
courts. In 8 courts (Mobile County, Ala.; Bridgeport and New
Haven, Conn.; Orleans Parish, La.; Buffalo, Erie County, and Rens
selaer County, N .Y .; and Fayette County, Pa.) no children were
retained under supervision of the court, whereas in 9 courts (District
of Columbia; Marion County, Ind.; Wayne County, Mich.; Hennepin
County and Ramsey County, Minn.; Allegheny County and Mont
gomery County, Pa.; Pierce County, Wash.; and Milwaukee County,
Wis.) the court retained responsibility for the majority of the cases,
varying from more than a half to practically all of the cases. Super
vision of the child in his own home or in other family homes by proba
tion officers was used in 4,313 cases (19 percent), nearly half of these
cases being in New York City and Allegheny County, Pa. Coopera
tion between the court and some public or private child-caring agency
or institution, whereby the agency or institution or individual provided
the care for the child and the court retained responsibility for the
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
33
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
care and for work with the family, was used for 3,417 cases (15 percent).
Almost two thirds of the cases in which the child was^aifiM lor by
cooperative supervision were reported by 7 cou rte^ i^ tfict of GqLum-'
bia; Wayne County, Mich.; Hennepin Coi^uty a
n
d
o duty,
Minn'; New York City, N .Y .; M u ltn om a h »Q o^ ^ lW eg .; an^,Mil
waukee County, Wis.).
^
nVaVlQftt
r»n\Vo06
T a b l e 26.— Disposition and manner ofnandling depSm^my and neglect cases dis
posed of by 140 courtsa/dring 1981
Dependency and neglect cases
Unofficial1
Official
Total
Disposition of case
Number
Percent
Percent
Percent
distri Number distri Number distri
bution
bution
bution
4,556
17,761
22,317
22,316
100
17,760
100
4,556
100
Child kept under supervision of court---------
7,730
35
6,706
38
1,024
22
Probation officer supervising. . ...............
Agency or individual supervising--------Under temporary care of an institution...
4,313
1,579
1,838
19
7
8
3,464
1,484
1,758
20
8
10
849
95
80
19
2
2
Child not kept under supervision of court...
13,556
Disposition reported........................ ............... .
61
10,193
57
3,363
74
5,090
23
2,545
14
2,545
56
244
2,629
700
2,733
438
1
12
3
12
2
244
2,629
700
2,733
438
1
15
4
15
2
Referred without commitment to:
Institution............ ..................- ........Agency or individual---------------------
255
978
1
4
201
396
1
2
54
582
1
13
Referred to other court________________
Other disposition of case----------------------
158
331
1
1
57
250
1
101
81
2
2
Case held open without further action.........
1,030
5
861
5
169
4
' Case dismissed or adjusted....... ........... .
Committed to:
1
147 courts reported unofficial cases.
.
(2)
1
2Less than 1 percent.
Among the cases for which the courts did not retain responsibility
were 5,090 (23 percent) that were dismissed after a warning had been
given or some adjustment of the problem had been made and 1,030
(5 percent) in which the court held the case open but anticipated no
further need for action. In a few courts such disposition had been
made in one third to more than one half of the cases, whereas in other
courts definite action had been taken in a large majority of the cases.
Although an equal number of official and unofficial cases had been
dismissed or adjusted, such cases constituted 56 percent of the unofficial
cases but only 14 percent of the official cases.
Commitment to child-caring agencies or institutions or to individ
uals was made in 6,744 cases (30 percent), and the child was referred
to such agencies or persons without commitment in 1,233 cases (6
percent). Table X I (p. 54) shows that there was wide variation in the
courts as to the use of commitment or referral of children to insti
tutions or agencies. In a few localities, notably Mobile, Ala.; San
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
34
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S , 19 31
Francisco County, Calif.; Buffalo, Syracuse, Monroe County, and
Rensselaer County, N .Y.; and Fayette County, Pa., it is evident that
few children had been brought into court in cases of dependency or
neglect, unless there was need for court authority for transfer of
custody to an institution or agency.
OTHER TYPES OF CHILDREN’ S CASES
Twenty-four courts serving areas of 100,000 or more population,
and 11 serving less populous areas reported other types of children’s
cases dealt with during the year in addition to delinquency, depend
ency, and neglect cases. (See table I, p. 38.) Nearly two thirds of
the 1,116 cases reported as “ special proceedings” had been dealt with
by the court in Philadelphia, Pa. The largest number of cases (364)
were concerned with the commitment of feeble-minded children to
institutions, or with making other provisions for the care of these
children. The next largest group (293) involved children dealt with
as material witnesses; such cases were reported by only five courts
(Fulton County, Ga.: New York City and Westchester County, N .Y.;
Hamilton County, Ohio; and Philadelphia, Pa.) Petitions for adop
tion had been under consideration in 226 cases, of which all but 25
were heard in the Philadelphia court.34 The question of custody of
the child was the major problem in 183 cases. Some of these involved
the appointment of a guardian and others the settlement of disputes
as to custody. Other types of problems under the jurisdiction of the
court were involved in 50 cases, including granting permission for a
minor to marry or a boy to enlist in the Army or Navy.
CASES OF CHILDREN DISCHARGED FROM SUPERVISION
Cases of children discharged from supervision were reported by 34
courts serving areas of 100,000 or more population and by 67 courts
serving areas with smaller population. These courts terminated
supervision of 13,150 cases of delinquent children, 4,192 cases of
dependent and neglected children, and 14 cases of other types. This
last group has not been included in the following discussion or in
tables 27 or 28 but is included in table I (p. 38). In a large majority
of these cases the children had been placed under official supervision,
but 740 cases of delinquency and 343 cases of dependency and neglect
had been dealt with unofficially.36
REASO NS FO R D ISC H ARG E, AND CO N D U CT W H ILE UNDER
SU PERVISIO N
Table 27 gives information as to the reasons the children were dis
charged from supervision. In the largest percentage of delinquency
cases (64) and of dependency and neglect cases (62) the children
were discharged because of satisfactory conduct or because conditions
had improved. Fulfillment of a particular court order or expiration
of a definite period of supervision were the reasons for discharge in
** The courts were instructed to report cases as “ adoption proceedings” only if the juvenile court had the
authority to grant or deny adoption petitions. In a number of the cases reported as dependency or neglect
the court took some part in adoption proceedings, such as giving consent to adoption or declaring a child
eligible tor adoption, although the adoption was actually granted in another court.
34 Information as to the method of dealing with supervision cases was not available for Philadelphia,
Pa., or for the State of Connecticut, exclusive of Bridgeport.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
35
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S , 1931
12 percent of the delinquency cases but for only 2 percent of the depend
ency and neglect cases. Placement of children under supervision for
a definite period of time is a procedure used by a few courts but not
by others. More than two-thirds of all delinquency cases so dealt
with were reported by the courts in Hudson County and Mercer
County, N.J., and Philadelphia, Pa. (See table X II, p. 56.) In 16
percent of the delinquency cases, and in 26 percent of the dependency
and neglect cases, failure of the child to improve satisfactorily in con
duct while under supervision, or continuance of unsatisfactory con
ditions affecting him, resulted in commitment to an institution or
agency for further supervision, or in a decision to discharge the child
in spite of unsatisfactory conduct or conditions as further supervision
seemed undesirable. Reference to another court, inability to locate
the child, removal from jurisdiction of the court, and other reasons
were reported as the cause of discharge in 9 percent of the delinquency
cases and in 10 percent of the dependency and neglect cases. (See table
X II (p. 56) and X III (p. 57).)
T a b l e 27.— Reason for discharge in cases o f delinquent and of dependent and neglected
children discharged from supervision by 101 courts during 1931 1
Cases of children d ischarged from
super vision
Reason for discharge
Dependent and
neglected
Delinquent
Number
13,142
100
4,189
100
8,386
1,279
245
64
10
2
2,578
60
36
62
1
1
269
1,572
210
111
2
12
2
1
119
492
471
57
3
12
11
1
490
580
4
4
258
118
6
3
4,192
13,150
Conduct of child satisfactory or conditions improved..........
Expiration of period specified by court..................................
Order of court fulfilled..-......................... .............. ..............
Conduct of child or conditions unsatisfactory but further
supervision not advised................... ........... ........................
Child committed or referred to an institution_____ _____ _
Child committed or referred to an agency or individual___
Referred to other court..................... ....................................
Whereabouts of child unknown or moved from jurisdiction
of court____________ ______________ _____________ ____
Other reason____________ ____ _________________________
Percent
distri
bution
Percent
distri
bution
Number
8
3
1 Of the 101 courts reporting supervision cases, 96 courts reported delinquency cases and 54 reported
dependency and neglect cases.
Information was received from 57 courts as to whether complaints
of misconduct of the children had been received during the time that
they were under supervision by the court. Of 9,618 cases of delin
quency for which this information was given, complaints had been
received in only one fifth (1,900 cases).
These same 57 courts also reported on changes that had been made
in the type of supervision given. Information on this item was more
complete, being available for all the 11,046 cases of delinquency re
ported. Changes in the type of supervision had been made in 859
cases, nearly three fourths of these being reported by the District of
Columbia; Hennepin County, Minn.; and New York City. In the
largest number of cases (387) the child, although under supervision
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
36
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S , 19 3 1
of the court, had been placed under care of an institution or agency
and after a period of intensive care had been returned to his home
under supervision of the probation officer. In 125 cases the child
had been under care of the probation officer but was transferred to an
institution or agency for care until the time of discharge. . Transfer
of supervision from an agency or individual to an institution, or the
reverse, had been used in 7 cases. More than one qjiange in type of
supervision had been necessary in 340 cases.
LEN GTH OF T IM E UNDER SU PERVISION
The length of time that the children were under supervision in de
linquency and in dependency and neglect cases is shown in table 28.
In two thirds of the dependency and neglect cases and in nearly three
fourths of the delinquency cases the child had been under supervision
less than a year, the larger number for less than 6 months. * Some
interesting differences are to be found in tables X IY and X V (pp. 58
and 59) in the length of the period of supervision in individual courts.
In all the cases of delinquent children discharged by three courts 36
(Mobile County, Ala. * Dade County, Fla.; and Syracuse, N .Y.) the
children had been under supervision less than one year. Super
vision of children for periods of three or more years was reported, how
ever, by a number of courts. The majority of cases of delinquent
children under supervision for this length of time had been under care
of three courts (Mercer County, N.J.; Montgomery County, Ohio;
and Philadelphia, Pa.). Supervision had been extended through three
or more years in a number of dependency and neglect cases in San
Francisco County, Calif.; Wayne County, M ich.; Hennepin County,
Minn.; and Philadelphia, Pa.
T a b l e 28.— Length of time child was under supervision in cases of delinquent and
of dependent and neglected children discharged from supervision by 101 courts
during 19S1 “
Cases of children discharged from
supervision
Duration of supervision
Dependent and
neglected
Delinquent
Number
Percent
distri
bution
Number
Percent
distri
bution
4,192
Total cases_____________
13,160
Duration reported____________
13,148
100
4,191
100
Less than 6 months____ _
6 months, less than 1 year,..
1 year, less than 18 months _
18 months, less than 2 years.
2 years, less than 3...............
3 years ormore___________
4,955
4,506
2,245
699
462
281
38
34
17
5
4
2
1,673
1,105
615
270
356
272
40
26
12
Duration not reported.
6
8
6
2
• Of the 101 courts reporting supervision cases, 96 reported delinquency cases and 54 reported depend
ency and neglect cases.
38 The one child discharged from supervision in Fayette County, Pa., had been under supervision less
than a year.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
38
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
T a b l e I .— Number of boys’ and girls’ delinquency, dependency and neglect, and
special-proceedings cases disposed of, and number of cases of children discharged
from supervision, by J+8 courts serving specified areas and 126 courts serving orher
areas during 1931 1
Area served by court
and
Delinquency cases Dependency
neglect cases
Cases of children
discharged from
supervision
Special-proceed
ings cases
Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls
Total casesJ____ ____
State totals:
Connecticut___________
Utah...............................
A
reas
w it h
M
P
ore
opu
5 9 ,8 8 0 5 1 ,2 7 8
4 ,2 1 5
2 ,9 3 5
3 ,6 9 8
2 ,5 4 5
1 00 ,0 0 0
or
l a t i o n ................ 5 3 ,1 0 3 4 5 ,4 7 2
Alabama: Mobile County.
California:
San Diego County_____
San Francisco County. Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)........
Hartford (city)...............
New Haven (city)_____
District of Columbia.........
Florida: Dade County___
Georgia: Fulton County..
Indiana:
Marion County_______
Iowa: Polk County______
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish....... .........
Orleans Parish....... ........
M aryland: B altim ore
(city)...............................
Michigan:
Kent County__________
Wayne County________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_____
Ramsey County.’ ______
New Jersey:
Hudson County_______
Mercer County________
New York:
8 ,6 0 2 2 2 ,3 1 7 1 1 ,5 5 5 10, 7 62 s 1 ,1 1 6
181
389
113
364
91
9
4
7 ,6 3 1 1 9 ,9 9 0 1 0 ,3 6 1
161
517
390
753
204
9 ,6 2 9
1 ,0 8 5
160
142
18
5
3
2
1
1 ,6 1 7
626
1 ,3 8 4
486
233
140
349
842
152
4 35
197
407
29
12
445
704
369
1 ,9 2 7
608
1 ,1 8 6
376
612
346
1 ,6 6 8
498
999
69
92
23
259
110
187
49
116
109
297
658
401
31
56
63
163
3 30
202
18
60
46
134
328
199
350
617
457
221
404
360
129
213
97
2 25
242
404
113
124
2 04
112
118
2 00
338
924
277
840
61
84
155
3 52
65
249
2 ,8 8 4
2 ,6 1 5
269
314
507
2 ,9 6 5
431
2 ,6 6 4
76
301
275
766
1 ,2 0 3
'4 0 9
990
3 10
213
99
296
193
161
102
1 ,6 9 6
443
1 ,5 2 0
391
176
52
1, 212
1 ,1 1 8
94
71
33
187
224
7 ,2 9 9
243
272
397
173
190
6 ,4 1 6
195
256
338
14
34
883
48
16
59
107
192
4 ,1 7 3
162
116
438
61
89
2 ,1 9 8
89
54
215
1 ,8 5 5
2 ,5 5 0
1 ,9 7 9
578
1 ,5 7 9
1 ,9 4 1
1 ,6 1 3
3 60
276
609
366
218
729
371
188
348
385
182
102
181
1 ,2 4 7
1 ,1 1 0
137
646
853
66
74
721
55
65
132
11
9
7.39C
6 ,5 2 4
91
1 , 14S
72S
228 1 7 ,3 5 6 1 3 ,0 8 5 4 ,2 7 1
5
1
1
1
1 ,2 0 9
'3 7 7
124
58
217 1 5 ,6 2 8 1 1 ,6 7 9 3 ,9 4 9
16
12
2
1 ,3 3 3
'4 3 5
1
29
28
1
13
202
529
152
349
56
180
56
230
205
824
271
4 90
55
187
192
631
184
371
1
43
13
193
87
119
251
20
198
145
20
143
106
1
6
6
16
4
11
90
103
5
4
1
170
144
2
1
1
264
200
64
129
368
146
398
2 ,0 4 3
1 ,5 0 4
539
135
91
865
384
642
291
223
93
300
505
244
468
56
37
38
189
163
26
46
103
1 ,9 7 5
73
62
223
139
135
3 ,8 7 3
9
11
238
133
109
2 ,8 8 5
8
9
212
6
26
9 88
1
2
26
38
55
Erie County (ex^’usive
New York (city)______
Rensselaer County_____
Westchester County___
Ohio:
Franklin County_____ _
Hamilton County_____
Montgomery County__
O re g o n : M u ltn o m a h
County_______________
Pennsylvania:
Montgomery County__
Philadelphia (city and
county)........................
South Carolina: Greenville
County...........................
Utah: Third District_____
Virginia: Norfolk (city)...
Washington:
143
1
1
51
23
84
1
1
28
344
189
86
167
15
28
8
2
7
26
164
126
1
Ï64
100
64
309
337
21
14
391
287
104
909
4
7
469
3
5
440
1
2
866
3 ,6 5 4
1 ,9 4 1
1 ,7 1 3
707
75
978
595
16
171
133
58
172
159
30
92
73
28
80
86
11
4
2
3
1
1
8
3
1
128
621
84
5 30
44
91
48
174
20
83
28
91
1
25
11
1
14
3 ,5 2 5
3 ,0 2 2
503
1 ,2 1 6
627
589
1
1
6 ,7 7 7
5 ,8 0 6
971
2 ,3 2 7
1 ,1 9 4
1 ,1 3 3
31
20
59
1
7
1
(<)
«
1
1 ,2 3 9
838
401
33
227
231
27
181
197
6
46
34
918
598
3 20
1 ,7 2 8
1 ,4 0 6
3 22
Wisconsin: Milwaukee
A reas
w it h
L ess T h an
1 0 0 ,0 0 0 P o p u l a t i o n ..............
11
i Specified areas include those with 100,000 or more population and other areas those with less than 100,000
population according to the 1930 census.
1 Exclusive of the totals for Connecticut and Utah, which are included in figures for specified courts and
other courts.
* Includes 707 cases for one court which did not report boys’ and girls’ cases separately.
4Not separately reported.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
39
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T S T A T IS T IC S , 1 9 3 1
T a b l e I I a .— Age limitation of original court jurisdiction and age of boys dealt with
in delinquency cases disposed o f by 43 courts serving specified areas and 96 courts
serving other areas during 1931 1
Boys’ delinquency cases
Age limiArea served by court
Age of boy
original
Age
10
12
14
18
court juris Total Un
der years, years, years, 16
17 years not
diction
re
10 under under under years years and
years 12
14
16
over port
ed
51,278 2,939 6,542 12,135 20,048 5.162 3,259
228
965
371
24
16
45,472 2,490 5,692 10,702 18,161 4,521 2,820
201
885
3,698
Utah.......................................... Under 18.. 2,545
A
100,000
M ore
P o p u l a t i o n ............................................
reas
w it h
101
487
142
9
19
45
38
16
6
2
7
Under 21.. 1,384
....... do.......
486
79
9
85
16
141
62
464
171
319
112
235
95
57
19
4
2
376
612
346
Under 17.. 1,668
498
Under 16..
999
39
88
9
109
31
63
75
126
27
220
54
149
117
177
122
376
119
304
144
204
188
624
200
438
1
17
323
76
35
8
7
8
7
1
2
10
221
404
360
8
24
21
28
54
37
71
122
77
112
181
110
2
4
65
49
277
840
Maryland: Baltimore (city )... Under 16.. 2, 615
Michigan:
Under 17..
431
2,664
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_______ Under 18..
990
310
New Jersey:
1,520
391
New York:
1,118
Erie County (exclusive of
173
190
Monroe County_________
6,416
' 195
256
Syracuse (city)__________
338
Ohio:
Franklin County________ Under 18.. 1,579
Hamilton County_______ ....... do____ 1,941
1,613
'360
Oregon: Multnomah County.. ....... do....... 1,110
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County_______ Under 16..
721
Fayette County_________
55
65
Philadelphia (city and
6,524
South Carolina: Greenville
75
Utah: Third District________ Under 18..
978
Virginia: Norfolk (city)______ ....... do.......
595
Washington:
84
530
Wisc6nsin: Milwaukee County...........................................
3,022
5
32
274
8
103
600
17
180
770
48
337
867
22
154
69
4
26
19
1
4
3
172
4
13
29
17
68
288
78
167
628 1,132
82
539
4
27
1
3
32
25
3
81
15
161
45
306
99
194
67
191
78
7
3
25
74
40
249
95
476
115
704
136
16
4
40
136
309
624
6
12
63
86
28
60
93
782 1,837 3,340
24
104
27
1Ì2
53
67
49
95
141
5
4
43
33
3
23
Indiana:
Lake County___________
Marion County_________
reas
w it h
L
Under 16..
Under 18.
Louisiana:
P
706 1,162 1,342
231 '457 '825
or
Alabama: Mobile County___
California:
San Diego County............
San Francisco County___
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)________
Hartford (city)__________
New Haven (city)_______
District of Columbia._______
Florida: Dade County_______
A
387
134
ess
T
h an
6
2
338
6
21
25
1
19
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
75
1
1
3
12
86
94
52
23
49
159
175
141
28
103
287
375
316
58
184
537
564
504
128
352
280
358
281
75
209
215
319
258
45
175
3
26
6
6
30
55
3
32
37
93
8
348
22
38
19
8
3
6
2
4
2
218
12
16
3
478 1,059 1,697 2,920
1
1
22
7
5
53
20
17
83
46
27
180
77
25
328
162
181
129
143
151
5
5
5
5
3
14
5
27
13
69
23
174
16
116
21
123
1
2
2
5
148
267
512
866
592
594
30
13
449
850 1,433 1,887
641
439
27
80
341
1
1 00 ,0 0 0
o p u l a t i o n ...........................................
5,806
1Specified areas include those with 100,000 or more population and other areas those with less than 100,000
population according to the 1930 census.
» Exclusive of the totals for Connecticut and Utah, which are included in figures for specified courts and
other courts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
40
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T
S T A T IS T IC S , 19 31
T a b l e Ylvi.— Age limitation of original court jurisdiction and age of girls dealt
with in delinquency cases disposed, of by 43 courts serving specified areas and 67
courts serving other areas during 1931 1
Girls’ delinquency cases
Area served by court
Age limitation of
original
court ju Tota!
risdiction
Total cases 1______________
State totals:
Connecticut________________
Utah..............................
Under 18..
Areas w i t h 100,000 oe M ore
P opulation.
Alabama: Mobile County
Under 16..
California:
San Diego County_______
San Francisco County__ -_.do_____
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)..... ......... Under 16—
Hartford (city)___
New Haven (city)_______ ...d o _____
District of Columbia________ Under 17..
Florida: Dade County_______
Georgia: Fulton County......... Under 16..
Indiana:
Lake County___________ Under 18.
Marion County_________
Iowa: Polk County_________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish___________
Orleans Parish__________
Maryland: Baltimore (city)— Under 16..
Michigan:
Kent County___________
Wayne County_________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_______ Under 18—
Ramsey County.___ ____ ...d o .........
New Jersey:
Hudson County_________ Under 16..
Mercer County_________
New York:
Buffalo (city).............. ...... ...d o _____
Erie County (exclusive of ...d o _____
Buffalo).
Monroe County_________
New York (city)________
Rensselaer County______ ...d o _____
Syracuse (city).......... ........ _-_do_.......
Westchester County_____ . - . d o . .......
Ohio:
Franklin County
- ...
Hamilton County_______
Mahoning County_______ ---d o _____
Montgomery County....... - - - d o ........
Oregon: Multnomah County..
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County............ Under 16..
Fayette County................. ---d o _____
Montgomery County....... -__do_.......
Philadelphia (city and --.d o _____
county).
South Carolina: Greenville - - d o _____
County.
Utah: Third District
Virginia: Norfolk (city)______ __ do__-__
Washington:
Pierce County................... ...d o _____
Spokane County________ ...d o _____
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County. ...d o ..........
A
L
P o p u l a t io n .
reas
w it h
ess
T
h an
1 00 ,0 0 0
Age of girl
10
12
14
Age
Un years
18
years years
der
16
17 years not
re
10
years
years
and
der ' der
years der
over port
12
14
16
ed
8,602
269
517
390
33
12
7,631
220
459 1,420 4,021 1,354
61
14
125
54
241
136
847
57
90
77
2
389 1,244 3,628 1,167
768
83
1
1
42
27
18
19
1
1
1
3
1
1
39
1
4
8
7
1
233
140
21
1
13
1
30
11
63
44
45
36
69
92
23
259
110
187
5
5
15
4
8
10
4
1
9
4
18
25
23
3
51
19
59
29
57
19
130
48
92
53
29
9
1
129
213
97
1
1
4
3
20
4
17
32
16
58
75
41
23
49
25
27
30
7
61
84
269
4
8
1
4
29
1
17
71
14
35
120
20
24
12
76
301
1
4
7
10
37
33
185
25
70
1
213
99
1
3
19
6
70
36
45
25
63
29
176
52
9
4
14
5
38
15
114
25
1
2
94
14
4
7
1
15
3
67
10
1
3
52
3
2
2
10
191
7
3
6
19
603
26
11
35
14
1
1
8
20
18
12
5
35
79
43
33
16
103
203
145
88
55
72
151
81
39
29
50
114
57
30
27
24
1
6
10
18
34
883
48
16
59
276
609
366
218
137
21
1
4
6
16
9
86
132
3
1
1
1
3
8
1
1
8
s
12
132
11
9
866
2
5
43
1
64
170
81
10
8
563
16
1
5
5
5
171
133
5
4
4
7
20
25
47
40
53
26
39
26
2
2
1
4
5
3
3
1
7
19
1
44
91
503
24
35
155
9
26
144
1
1
11
4
10
36
6
11
17
142
2
971
49
70
176
393
187
79
2
2
14
1 Specified areas include those with 100,000 or more population and other areas those with less than
100,000 population according to the 1930 census.
s Exclusive of the totals for Connecticut and Utah, which are included in figures for specified courts
and other courts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
41
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
T a b l e I I I a .— Color, nativity, and parent nativity of boys dealt with in delinquency
cases disposed o f by 41 courts serving specified areas and 38 courts serving other
areas during 1931 1
Boys’ delinquency cases
White boys
Area served by court
Total cases >.
Native,
Native, foreign
Total
or
native
Total parent mixed
age parent
age
47,956 38,959
State total: Utah..
A
w it h
100,000 o r M o r e
P o p u l a t i o n .........................................
reas
Alabama: Mobile County.
California:
San Diego County----San Francisco County
Connecticut: Bridgeport (city)J
D¡strict of Columbia------ -----Florida: Dade County.............
Georgia: Fulton County..........
Indiana:
Lake County....... ..............
Marion County--------------Iowa: Polk County__________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish----------------• Orleans Parish-------- -------Maryland: Baltimore (c ity )...
Michigan:
Kent C ounty....................
Wayne County.................
Minnesota:
Hennepin County----------Ramsey County-------------New Jersey:
Hudson County.................
Mercer County..................
New York:
Buffalo (city).....................
Erie County (exclusive of
Buffalo)______________
Monroe County------ ------ New York (city)...... .........
Rensselaer County---------Syracuse (city)--------------Westchester County-------Ohio:
Franklin County...............
Hamilton County............
Mahoning County........... .
Montgomery County.......
Oregon: Multnomah County..
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County............
Fayette County.—: -------Montgomery County.......
Philadelphia (city and
county)— ................. .
South Carolina: Greenville
County--------------- -----------Utah: Third District.......... ....
Virginia: Norfolk (city)--------Washington:
Pierce County.......... . . . . .
Spokane County ..............
A
reas
P
w it h
o p u l a t io n
L e s s T h a n 1 00 ,00 0
..............................................
Boys
Col whose
Native,
Nativ ored color
was
parent For
boys not
ity
re
eign not
age
re
ported
born
not re
ported
ported
17,877
15,752
1,853
742
2 108
390
19
22
1,821
721
2,735
8,982
15
6
2,722
8,554
15
15,308
15,373
142
80
79
1
1,384
486
376
1,668
498
1,352
472
363
636
401
398
954
131
69
533
379
398
310
179
266
64
19
25
68
19
35
1
60
21
8
1
1
187
270
317
50
264
270
128
1
404
360
8
1
277
840
2,615
164
383
1,782
155
280
838
63
653
5
8
276
6
12
4
26
3
113
457
833
431
2,664
398
2,182
267
553
125
1,402
4
28
1
155
1
44
33
482 ...........
990
971
305
569
219
388
80
2
1
10
5
2
’ 3Q1
1 433
' 341
350
67
1,049
273
1 047
275
735
1
36
171
189
5 701
’ 193
244
314
53
81
1 423
127
50
74
115
103
4,071
66
186
214
24
2
5
162
16
8
10
l) 613
l) 393
1,110
1,095
1 079
*554
252
243
761
96
74
702
39
240
677
146
12
24
8
10
2
28
190
33
33
400
16
24
8
1
2
1
51
57
121
4
8
19
49
2,171
1,737
17
1
9
44,514 35,945
173
100
256
62
5
47
4
982
1, 566
46
45
696
292
1
254
13
82
3,022
2,934
72
405
1,163
108
1,288
5
394
3,442
3,014
2,569
379
32
4
32
14
13
1,032
97
601
34
134
43
19
5
87
50
34
1
75
10
3
73
1
3
1
71
1
21
2
1
715
2
12
24
5
3
283
42
391
625
205
64
15
15
29
2
289
55 .
34
*2
6
88
21
13
428
6
l Specified areas include those with 100,000 or more population and other areas those with less than
100,000 population according to the 1930 census.
* Exclusive of the total for Utah, which is included m figures for specified courts and other courts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
42
JtT V E N ÎL E -C Ô U R T S T A T IS T IC S , 1 9 3 1
T a b l e I I I b .— Color, nativity, and parent nativity of girls dealt with in delinquency
cases disposed o f by
areas during 1931 1
41 courts
serving specified areas and 31 courts serving other
Girls’ delinquency cases
White girls
Area served by court
Girls
whose
Native, Native,
Col
color
Na
Total
Native, foreign parent
ored
was
For tivity girls
native
or
not
age
Total parent
eign
not
mixed
not
re
re
age
parent report born
ported
ported
age
ed
Total cases ».
8,154
6,247
3,493
2,068
243
State total: Utah..
390
386
316
64
6
7,516
5,700
3,022
2,001
241
18
8
8
233
140
69
259
110
187
224
136
62
54
83
71
154
37
12
49
79
71
54
47
48
5
10
17
2
129
213
97
102
126
86
34
126
82
62
1
5
61
84
269
39
27
124
37
19
65
1
29
2
1
30
1
5
22
57
145
76
301
70
256
45
93
23
129
2
8
15
11
6
45
213
99
200
90
104
71
93
19
2
1
13
9
176
52
165
42
52
6
112
36
1
11
10
94
87
21
64
2
7
14
34
883
48
16
59
13
33
742
47
16
51
6
9
208
37
6
12
7
21
494
10
10
35
4
3
36
1
1
14p
1
1
3
276
609
366
218
137
193
407
286
169
132
174
382
38
142
108
13
11
78
15
8
5
14
12
8
4
132
11
9
105
10
7
47
6
5
58
4
2
866
577
185
270
2
16
171
133
9
170
70
9
125
66
39
4
6
44
91
503
41
89
481
29
71
192
11
17
168
110
1
1
3
8
3
2
22
638
547
471
67
2
5
2
91
A
reas
P
w it h
o p u l a t io n
1 0 0 ,0 0 0 o r M o r e
............................................ ..
Alabama: Mobile County____
California:
San Diego County.............
San Francisco County.......
Connecticut: Bridgeport (city).
District of Columbia_________
Florida: Dade County.............
Georgia: Fulton County___ _
Indiana:
Lake County____________
Marion County__________
Iowa: Polk County__________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish____________
Orleans Parish___________
Maryland: Baltimore (city)___
Michigan:
Kent County____________
Wayne County__________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_______
Ramsey County_________
New Jersey:
Hudson County______•___
Mercer County__________
New York:
Buffalo (city)____________
Erie County (exclusive of
Buffalo)_______________
Monroe County______. . . .
New York (city)_________
Rensselaer County_______
Syracuse (city)......... .........
Westchester County_____
Ohio:
Franklin County________
Hamilton County............
Mahoning County_______
Montgomery County.........
Oregon: Multnomah County..
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County_______
Fayette County_________
Montgomery County.........
Philadelphia (city and
county)____ ___________
South Carolina: Greenville
County...................................
Utah: Third District.
Virginia: Norfolk (city)______
Washington:
Pierce County___________
Spokane County_________
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County.
A
reas
P
w it h
o p u l a t io n
L e s s T h a n 1 00 ,0 0 0
.................... ............................
116
327
1,906
1
4
111
325
1,815
1
10
5
19
1
16
1
3
27
87
11
4
8
1
8
1
3
9
4
7
205
27
116
150
3
9
83
202
79
49
5
1
27
1
2
2
118
289
7
1
63
1 Specified areas include those with 100,000 or more population and other areas those with less than 100,000
population according to the 1930 census.
1 Exclusive of the total for Utah, which is included in figures for specified courts and other courts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
43
JXJYENILE-COTJRT S T A T IS T IC S , 1931
T a b l e I V .— Source o f reference to court o f delinquency cases disposed o f by 41 courts
serving specified areas and 38 courts serving other areas during 1931 1
Delinquency cases
Source of reference to court
Other 1
source
Source
not re
ported
393
779
4 ,6 0 8
7 ,2 5 9
302
146
2 ,9 3 5
1 ,0 4 8
561
11
8
154
587
49
A
RATION.................................................
5 2 ,0 3 0
3 3 ,8 6 4
3 ,4 1 2
2 ,3 5 1
342
7 42
4 ,4 1 3
6 ,5 2 9
242
135
Alabama: Mobile County.............
California:
160
54
27
3
4
7
25
37
2
1
1 ,6 1 7
'6 2 6
445
1 ,9 2 7
'6 0 8
1 ,1 8 6
874
401
296
1 ,3 2 6
189
715
139
35
39
1
112
24
14
53
4
233
13
142
170
19
16
19
12
4
4
4
154
90
25
2 27
115
67
207
5
66
133
145
234
43
2
3
2
350
617
457
130
176
186
100
14
75
13
6
1
5
18
7
9
45
125
48
39
260
137
11
1
338
9 24
2 ,8 8 4
139
27
2 ,5 1 1
2
41
891
9
2
99
507
2 ,9 6 5
354
2 ,1 1 2
28
302
10
1
1 ,2 0 3
' 409
8 02
3 10
29
2
12
1 ,6 9 6
443
6 97
327
316
23
88
19
1 ,2 1 2
1 ,1 2 3
reas
w it h
1 0 0 ,0 0 0
or
M
ore
P
opu
Parents
or rela
tives
Other
in d i vidual
Social
agency
3 ,0 9 9
517
5 6 ,1 1 0
School
depart
ment
Proba
tion
officer
4 ,0 4 6
Total cases *_______ ____ - .........
Police
3 5 ,4 7 8
Total
Other
court
Area served by court
-
San Francisco County.............
Connecticut: Bridgeport (city)—
Florida: Dade County...................
2
5
Indiana:
24
Louisiana:
Maryland: Baltimore (city)..........
Michigan:
71
39
1
146
91
3
36
8
24
2
2
1
5
96
52
137
54
260
3
55
2
29
6
141
20
171
69
19
2
47
3
100
30
428
41
14
5
15
6
59
7
1
1
1
24
61
11
1
20
6
31
1 ,1 0 2
17
7
31
49
37
1 ,7 4 4
27
22
80
1
1
1
New York:
Erie County
(exclusive of
Ohio:
Franklin County____________
Hamilton County___________
Mahoning County__________
Oregon: Multnomah County____
Pennsylvania:
Philadelphia
(city
187
2 24
7 ,2 9 9
243
2 72
397
107
129
4 ,2 5 7
72
230
183
14
1
108
114
10
82
10
2
3
1 ,8 5 5
2 ,5 5 0
1 ,9 7 9
5 78
1 ,2 4 7
1 ,0 3 6
1 ,8 6 6
8 97
172
901
152
102
424
148
48
113
13
15
23
20
13
50
8
34
3
28
72
24
19
27
158
2 05
186
86
80
338
224
420
96
150
8 53
66
74
194
52
62
68
417
1
4
7
6
1
2
151
12
4
7 ,3 9 0
6 ,2 7 5
236
2
35
434
403
91
1 ,1 4 9
728
66
584
446
6
223
48
2
16
61
3
2
6
4
102
44
7
206
115
128
621
3 ,5 2 5
91
4 82
3 ,0 1 3
11
39
205
19
15
8
27
72
4
43
134
8
5
79
4 ,0 8 0
1 ,6 1 4
6 34
748
37
195
730
60
3
1
6
1
5
Washington:
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County__
reas
with L
ess
T
h an
21
2
11
2
3
11
6
16
2
7
6
and
S o u t h C a r o l i n a : Gr e e n v i l l e
County______________________
A
18
2
Minnesota:
New Jersey:
Hudson County.......................
1
1
6
6
5
1
1
h
8
7
1 0 0 ,0 0 0 P o p u -
LATION______________ ________ ____
51
11
• i Specified areas include those with 100,000 or more population and other areas those with less than 100,000
population according to the 1930 census.
t Exclusive of the total for Utah, which is included in figures for specified courts and other courts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
44
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
T a b l e V .— P la ce o f care o f child p en d in g hearing or d isp o sitio n in d elinquency
cases d isp o sed o f b y J^l courts serving sp ecified areas and 3 8 courts serving other
areas d u rin g 1 9 3 1 1
Delinquency cases
Detention care overnight or longer in
specified place
Area served by court
A
A
No de Board
Jail
Total tention
ing
Place
Other or Other
cases care
home Deten
place ofcare
tion
insti
police
or other home2
of
not
re
tution sta care3 ported
family
tion 3
home
Total cases 3__________________ 56,110
2,935
r e a s w i t h 100,000 o r m o r e p o p u LATION--__________________ _____ 52,030
Alabama: Mobile County............
160
California:
1,617
626
Connecticut: Bridgeport (city)_. _
445
1,927
608
Georgia: Fulton County.............. 1,186
Indiana:
Lake County...........................
350
617
457
Louisiana:
338
924
2,884
Michigan:
507
2,965
Minnesota:
1,203
409
New Jersey:
1,696
443
New York:
1,212
Erie County (exclusive of
187
224
7,299
’ 243
272
397
Ohio:
1,855
2,550
1,979
578
1,247
Pennsylvania:
853
66
74
Philadelphia
(city
and
7,390
S o u t h C a r o l i n a: G r e e n v i l l e
91
1,149
728
Washington:
128
621
3,525
r e a s w it h
L
ess
T
h an
1 00 ,00 0 P
opu
Not re
ported
wheth
er de
tention
care
was
given
33,804
2,552
183 13,902
29
154
4,888 1,428
4
72
267
115
2
1,636
9
30,509
63
131 13,607
1
85
4,857 1,257
10
44
2
1,623
1
77
26
1
___
2
1,059
262
320
1, 509
'566
696
452
331
122
412
4
2
483
188
204
222
2
1
3
145
384
197
3
5
8
2
30
88
405
2,702
3
41
3
516
168
10
1
1
4
303
1,173
15
1,003
247
51
198
1,771
10
1
2
4
3
1
994
384
691
59
4
815
396
1
127
91
3,665
152
35
254
3
802
1,321
1,015
360
819
2
1
235
719
1,143
886
145
187
393
1
17
26
1, 526
17
154
285
2
2
1
78
207
1,819
2
1
295
31
193
2
8
15
1
24
1
5,105
4
24
7
7
2
1
20
63
21
360
1,692
129
70
304
8
75
65
183
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
118
50
48
9
70
957
353
1
57
133
3,593
76
2
1
1
34
2
4
3
5
91
17
6
1
1
2
2
27
69
1
5
36
409
11
705
1
5
18
28
80
29
48
39
15
2
6
4
1
12
223
13
-
4,080
3,295
52
171
1 Specified areas include those w'th 100,000 or more population and other areas those with less than 100,000
population according to the 1930 census.
2 Includes cases of children cared for part of the time in detention homes and part of the time elsewhere,
but excludes cases of children also held in jails or police stations.
3 Includes a few cases o children cared for part of the time in jails or police stations and part of the time
elsewhere.
3 Includes a few cases of children held in more than one place of care but in places other than detention
homes, jails, or police stations.
3 Exclusive of the total for Utah, which is included in figures for specified courts and other courts
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
45
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
T a b l e V I a .— R ea so n fo r reference to court in b o y s ’ d elin q u en cy cases d isp o sed o f by
4 8 courts serving specified areas and 9 6 courts serving other areas d uring 1 9 3 1
1
Boys’ delinquency cases
Reason for reference to court
'S
O
E-i
Total cases J.
State totals:
Connecticut_________________
Utah________________________
A reas
bD
•9
aS
<D
GQ
a
® 9
©
c3 h
O O
08
o
d
■<
a
C8
P
H
fc-l
©
a
a
y
bfl
t*.
o
0
c8
u
3cS
>
o
be
a
¡3
1
i
«
o
GQ
5 1 ,2 7 8 2 3 ,1 1 5 1 3 ,7 0 6 1 ,6 2 5 2 ,9 8 2 3 ,1 2 3 3 ,0 4 8
3 ,6 9 8
2 ,5 4 5
1 ,7 1 7
1 ,1 5 2
1 ,2 2 2
552
22
69
132
346
125
123
161
66
©
e ia 2
©
03
1*
08
f
ct of
ness
ch ie f
Area served by court
MW
0
M
©
Pi
£
m
>*
2 cc
Pi to g
M
a
o
<S
©
a ©
f u t
«4
a o
O ft
03
£
o
«
u
812 1 ,3 0 4
397
1 ,0 7 8
84
68
3
75
156
48
704 1 ,0 8 4
302
946
16
35
76
46
88
w i t h 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 o r M o r e P o p
u l a t io n
............................................................
45, 472 2 0 ,5 1 0 12, 111 1 ,4 7 8 2 ,5 0 4 2 ,9 3 6 2 ,8 0 9
Alabama: Mobile County____
142
California:
San Diego County.............. 1 ,3 8 4
San Francisco County____
486
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)_________
376
Hartford (city)___________
612
New Haven (city)________
3 46
District of Columbia_________
1 ,6 6 8
Florida: Dade County_______
498
Georgia: Fulton County______
999
Indiana:
Lake County_____________
221
Marion County___________
404
Iowa: Polk County___________
360
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish____________
277
Orleans Parish____________
840
Maryland: Baltimore (city)___ 2 ,6 1 5
Michigan:
Kent County_____________
431
Wayne County___________ 2 ,6 6 4
Minnesota:
Hennepin County________
990
Ramsey County_____ ____ _
3 10
New Jersey:
Hudson County__________ 1 ,5 2 0
Mercer County___________
391
New York:
Buffalo (city)_____________ 1 ,1 1 8
Erie County (exclusive of
Buffalo)___ ____________
173
Monroe County__________
190
New York (city)__________ 6 ,4 1 6
Rensselaer County________
195
Syracuse (city).....................
256
Westchester County______
338
Ohio:
Franklin County_________ 1 ,5 7 9
Hamilton County_________ 1 ,9 4 1
Mahoning County________ 1 ,6 1 3
Montgomery County...........
360
Oregon: Multnomah County__ 1,110
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County________
721
Fayette County___________
55
Montgomery County...........
65
Philadelphia (city and coun
ty)...................................... 6, 524
South Carolina:
Greenville
County____________________
75
Utah: Third District__________
978
Virginia: Norfolk (city)_______
595
Washington:
Pierce County_____ _______
84
Spokane County__________
530
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County^ 3 ,0 2 2
A reas with L ess T han 100,000
P opulation ................... .................
5 ,8 0 6
pop^ationaccedingto ^the ^30 censu"’
78
14
467
310
214
188
221
221
841
177
573
110
110
2
267
4(
387
128
24C
270
74
146
51
32
4
2
1
15
16
20
41
87
35
105
f
6
3C
54
4
1£
3
40
2
63
9
6
4
124
5î
30
22
8
6
24
29
13
137
85
5£
12
14
3
5
9
4
10
14
4
40
4
10
4
2
1
10
18
37
16
6
27
18
10
13
49
5
12
4
5
26
2
41
11
108
139
1
7
14
29
62
41
2
4
127
59
53
25
250
25
125
9
54
5
92
1
32
163
31
13
4
14
77
18
17
5
26
3
299
28
25
3
152
23
54
19
36
45
6
14
2
4
5
63
6
6
250
4
3
31
32
85
116
423
8 17
63
216
1 ,4 1 3
22
17
10
243
1 ,7 5 0
62
295
500
193
170
28
655
237
306
82
692
321
79
130
2 ,5 7 3
69
183
205
49
2 ,1 1 2
11
47
34
25
702
955
551
143
565
350
333
498
56
258
32
134
352
45
55
76
2 ,1 6 7
2 ,6 7 3
17
2
2
10
22
29
4
3
63
84
7
58
140
19
11
514
13
V-
1
232
89
35
172
267
121
35
61
115
38
10
1
2
7
183
689
8C
21
7
11
451
12
3
13
66
54
71
20
62
3
3
62
34
25
7
25
122
6
5
h
315
3
4
1
1
1
13
4
5
12
17
22
41
7
20
6
28
28
3
2
13
57
28
11
6
35
2
11
142
2
49
286
4
12
112
1
13
95
4
52
21
22
478
187
239| 108
220
95
11
119
680
60
259
2 ,6 0 5
1 ,5 9 5
147
83
2
10
104
49
1
41 " 1
1
3
63
238
1 ,3 7 4
277
2
32
147
34
10 —
4
2
6
31
17
59
1
2
142
156
112
2
1
12 _____
6
59
6
1
6 _____
8 _____
7
34
26
1
56
499
264
88
7
13
270
160
21
7
32
20
1
257
31
3
132 _____
P°Pmauon ana other areas those with less than 100,000
othe/co^ ts6 ° f t0talS fOT Connecticut and utah>which are included in figures for specified courts and
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
46
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
T able V I b .—
R ea so n f o r reference to court in girls’ d elin q u en cy cases d isp o sed o f b y
4 3 courts serving specified areas and 6 7 courts serving other areas d uring 1 9 3 1 1
Girls’ delinquency cases
California:
Indiana:
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish_________ ____
Michigan:
Minnesota:
Hennepin County..................
Oregon: Multnomah County___
Pennsylvania:
Philadelphia (city and count y ) - .....................................
South Carolina: G r e e n v i l l e
Utah: Third District............... . . .
Virginia: Norfolk (city)________
Washington:
with L ess T han 100,000 P opulation .................................................
re
Use, possession, or
sale of liquor or
drugs
I Injury to person
Ungovernable
Running away
7
15
15
8
82 723 1,222 2,132 1,511 128
1
3
4
9
90
65
Sex offense
38
28
i 120
690
233
140
27
5
25
69
92
23
259
110
187
18
9
3
17
15
34
11
4
1
45
6
64
129
213
97
8
20
9
7
6
2
61
84
269
6
19
42
7
7
51
1
2
1
76
301
15
20
2
1
213
99
43
23
6
176
52
10
17
3
2
94
47
14
34
883
48
16
59
2
4
138
5
6
3
276
609
366
218
137
28
67
36
31
15
132
11
9
10
866
85
16
171
133
8
17
10
44
91
503
971
New York:
Ohio:
Franklin County___________
Hamilton County__________
Mahoning County_____ ____
90
2
25
950
1
New Jersey:
Erie County (exclusive of
112
90 885 1,311 2,335 1,709 157
18
Connecticut:
District of Columbia................
Florida: Dade County............ .
52
38
Other reason
A reas with 100,000 or M ore P opu LATION.....................................- .......... - 7,631
781
1 Reason not
ported
Total cases 1_________________ 8,602 1,094
State totals:
107
517
Connecticut___________________
42
Utah............................................... 390
Truancy
Stealing
Total
Area served by court
Traffic violation
Act of carelessness
or mischief
Reason for reference to court
39
40
120
56
147
45
15
8
35
45
51
58
45
21
1
1
5
1
17
11
4
3
17
31
13
8
22
2
1
19
22
23
17
35
4
125
31
47
6
10
1
6
17
6
42
116
62
2
8
4
16
12
41
126
2
10
81
31
4
1
6
43
4
31
1
7
2
1
1
4
57
34
10
1
1
8
18
19
3
14
5
20
79
29
81
5
1
22
10
59
27
62
37
1
1
6
22
1
55
17
41
8
1
3
3
14
23
7
1
66
3
5
284
4
4
19
71
5
1
16
g
38
3
1
4
1
10
8
—
7
9
1
1
1
1
1
5
4
__
1
1
3
2
5
250
5
4
16
61
14
95
36
2
15
105
32
40
11
51
152
48
23
46
108
173
102
54
45
2
6
9
3
24
25
1
53
6
5
17
4
1
2
1
156
45
251
235
65
9
14
5
1
1
9
8
2
1
60
17
4
20
18
1
30
45
22
16
1
2
11
8
5
3
1
__
__
10
13
51
1
1
15
1
4
43
71
9
31
50
2
14
88
20
19
178
2
1
5
5
144
91
8 162
89
203
198
29
22
2
3
57
39
31
10
1
1
1
6
1
11
29
3
20
3
A reas
4
2
2
1
30
6
8
1
1
31
__
17
4
1
4
__
6
25
—
1 Specified areas include those with 100,000 or more population and other areas those with less than 100,000
population according to the 1930 census.
2 Exclusive of totals for Connecticut and Utah, which are included in figures for specified courts apd other
courts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
47
JUVENILE-COTJBT STATISTICS, 1931
T a b l e V II .— M a n n e r o f handling d elin q u en cy cases d isp o sed o f b y J+8 courts serving
specified areas and 1 0 0 courts serving other areas d u rin g 1 9 8 1
1
Delinquency cases
Area served by court
Total
Official
Unofficial
Total cases 1__________________________
59,880
38,060
21,820
State totals:
Connecticut____________________________
Utah...................................................... - .......
4,215
2,935
2,485
1,324
1,730
1,611
M ore P opulation ....
53,103
34,097
19,006
Alabama: Mobile County________________
California:
San Diego County..................................
San Francisco County_______________
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city).....................................
Hartford (city).......................................
New Haven (city)_______________ _—
District of Columbia____________________
Florida: Dade C ou n ty ................................
Georgia: Fulton County...............................
Indiana:
Lake County-----------------------------------Marion County..................................
Iowa: Polk County_____________________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish— ....... ........................... .
Orleans Parish...................................... .
Maryland: Baltimore (city)........................ .
Michigan:
Kent County.............................. .......... .
Wayne County_____________________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County___________________
Ramsey County....................................
New Jersey:
Hudson County_____________________
Mercer County.......................................
New York:
Buffalo (city)..........................................
Erie County (exclusive of Buffalo)____
Monroe County_____________________
New York (city)-----------------------------Rensselaer County.................................
Syracuse (city)......... .............................
Westchester County________________
Ohio:
Franklin County...................................
Hamilton County___________________
Mahoning County__________________
Montgomery County....... ....................
Oregon: Multnomah County___________ _
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County.................................
Fayette County____________________
Montgomery County________________
Philadelphia (city and county)_______
South Carolina: Greenville County............
Utah: Third District___ ________________
Virginia: Norfolk (city)____ _______ _____
Washington:
Pierce County___________ ______ ____
Spokane County_____________ ______
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County__________
160
160
1,617
626
635
626
982
445
704
369
1,927
608
1,186
178
332
369
1,462
281
1,186
267
372
350
617
457
284
451
258
66
166
199
338
924
2,884
210
924
2,884
128
507
2,965
507
2,965
1,203
409
1,203
409
1,696
443
1,696
443
1,212
187
224
7,299
243
272
397
1,212
187
224
7,299
243
272
394
3
1,855
2,550
1,979
578
1,247
575
108
412
183
369
1,280
2,442
1,567
395
878
853
66
74
7,390
91
1,149
728
853
66
74
1,917
77
446
728
128
621
3,525
128
222
645
399
2,880
3,963
2,814
A reas
A re as
w ith
w ith
100,000
or
L ess T h an 100,000 P opulation .
6,777 |
465
327
5,473
14
703
1Specified areas include those with 100,000 or more population and other areas those with less than
100,000 population according to the 1930 census.
* Exclusive of totals for Connecticut and Utah, which are included in figures for specified courts and other
courts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e V I I I a .— D isp o s itio n o f b o y s ’ d elin q u en cy cases b y J^S courts serving specified areas and 9 6 courts serving other areas d uring 1 9 3 1 1
QO
Boys’ delinquency cases
Child kept under super
vision of court
Area served by court
Total
Utah
A
....... .................................- ....................-
r e a s ■w i t h 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 o r M o r e P o p u l a t i o n _______ ______
5 1 ,2 7 8
1 4 ,8 4 9
Case
held
Disposi
open
Referred
without
Under Case dis Committed to— commitment to— Restitu Other without tion not
reported
tion,
tempo missed
further
fine, or disposi
rary care or ad
of action
costs or tion
Insti Agency
of an in justed Institu Agency
or
indi
case
or
indi
dered
tution
tion
stitution
vidual
vidual
849
693
2 2 ,8 5 4
3 ,9 7 5
231
192
6 13
1 ,9 0 3
2 ,2 3 1
2 ,8 7 4
1 ,6 7 9
9 62
215
86
14
18
21
47
8
64
3 55
136
110
104
48
1
2 0 ,4 5 1
3 ,6 5 7
210
181
562
1 ,2 3 9
2 ,0 0 7
2 ,7 3 4
13
3 ,6 9 8
2 ,5 4 5
1 ,3 8 4
8 99
33
40
1
8
45, 472
1 2 ,9 9 9
7 72
6 47
142
27
2
2
31
65
2
5
8
1 ,3 8 4
4 86
218
346
4
31
723
91
32
37
2
7
6
10
133
5
2 25
3 76
612
346
1 ,6 6 8
498
999
122
165
224
600
154
385
185
306
58
418
2 24
30
16
22
30
35
26
229
1
5
4
31
4
10
28
5
2
54
18
6
20
38
8
5
12
21
170
15
3 24
221
4 04
3 60
69
120
149
35
2
18
71
153
48
29
27
8
277
8 40
2 ,6 1 5
55
17
293
1
65
107
1 ,8 4 9
55
199
381
8
7
4
431
2 ,6 6 4
196
1 ,4 7 8
6
24
70
134
5 55
24
2 97
1
9 90
3 10
397
180
2
3
163
33
74
70
28
5
14
California:
Connecticut:
20
3 29
21
23
3
4
23
5
61
Indiana:
5
1
3
2
2
1
13
4
7
9
3
14
6
168
6
4
14
15
19
39
44
19
5
5
24
467
12
Louisiana:
9
23
Michigan:
.
29
1
Minnesota:
Ramsey County____________________________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
7
6
1
1
8
15
12
1
2 79
295
2
2
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
Total cases *__________________________________
State totals:
Proba Agency
tion of or indi
ficer su vidual
pervis super
vising
ing
Child not kept under supervision of court
A kkas
with
L ess T han 100,000 P opulation
1 ,5 2 0
391
255
326
1 ,1 1 8
173
190
6 ,4 1 6
195
256
338
154
111
147
2 ,6 4 0
10
5
244
218
2
1 ,5 7 9
1 ,9 4 1
1 ,6 1 3
360
1 ,1 1 0
268
338
263
91
372
11
3
2
1
4
721
55
65
6 ,5 2 4
75
9 78
595
6 49
26
45
6 20
44
437
2 47
7
28
84
530
3 ,0 2 2
15
34
480
5 ,8 0 6
1 ,8 5 0
20 |
10
151
559
1
439
60
773
25
13
2 ,6 0 1
128
9
53
115
15
24
378
27
13
8
1 ,0 2 0
811
1 ,0 5 4
171
551
11
2
2 32
11
1
4
2
5
1
81
35
78
39
32
3
8
4
2
21
28
6
3
15
5
226
19
6
10
10
3
72
1
4 ,6 5 2
10
370
127
65
24
20
352
9
38
54
78
1
6
1
6
5
5
6
271
2 ,0 8 9
41
58
67
77
46
2 ,4 0 3
318
7
4
1
2
1
69
1
3
1
3
1
1
5
53
24
2
9
35
1
3 47
11
12
25
8
2
7
2
248
8
6
i
6
96
4 30
90
29
58
14
40
19
7
24
140
1
61
55
5 14
4
43
36
02
5
5
74
1
4
10
2
2
8
6
13
10
13
38
20
72
2 18
34
109
21
11
51
664
224
140
1
12
31
5
i Specified areas include those with 100,000 or more population and other areas those with less than 100,000 population accordine to the 1930 censm
1 Exclusive of totals for Connecticut and Utah, which are included in figures for specified courts and o t t o courts
g ° 6 1930 CenSUS'
1
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
New Jersey:
Hudson County__________________
Mercer County^_______ _____ " I I I !
New York:
Buffalo (city)________ ______ ______
Erie County (exclusive of Buffalo)—.
Monroe County_____________
New York (city)________ ____ _____
Rensselaer County______ _________
Syracuse (city).................................
Westchester County____________
Ohio:
Franklin County_________________
Hamilton County_________________
Mahoning County________________
Montgomery County______________
Oregon: Multnomah County__________
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County________________
Fayette County___________________
Montgomery County______________
Philadelphia (city and county)_____
South Carolina: Greenville County____
Utah: Third District__________________
Virginia: Norfolk (city)__ ______ ______
Washington:
Pierce County____________________
Spokane County__________________
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County________
CO
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T able V IIIb .
D is p o s itio n o f girls’ d elin q u en cy cases b y 1 $ courts servin g sp ecified areas and 6 7 courts serving other areas d u rin g 1 9 3 1
1
Cn
Girls’ delinquency cases
Child kept under super
vision of court
Area served by court
Total
Child not kept under supervision of court
Total cases1_________________
olttlo LOt-cllS.
Connecticut__________________
Utah.............................................
8,602
2,559
130
347
517
300
117
133
5
15
8
1
Ififi
22
A reas with 100,000 or M ore P opulation. .
7,631
2,328
104
328
2,457
957
18
2
3
13
233
140
19
61
145
28
3
27
2
21
69
92
23
259
110
187
4
40
11
91
10
115
32
12
5
47
57
2
8
22
5
45
i
7
2
2
2
6
1
129
213
97
61
84
269
66
76
301
22
154
213
99
93
37
Alabama: Mobile County.____
California:
San Diego County________
San Francisco County___
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)____ __________
Hartford (city)_____________
New Haven (city)__________
District of Columbia____________
Florida: Dade County_____ ____ _____
Georgia: Fulton County____ ____ ____
Indiana:
Lake County______ _______ ______
Marion County_____________________ .
Iowa: Polk County_____________ _____
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish_________________
Orleans Parish______________________ .
Maryland: Baltimore (city)____________
Michigan:
Kent County_________ __________________
Wayne County......................... ...........................
Minnesota:
Hennepin County............................ .............. .
Ramsey County______ __________________
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
3
15
2,819
1,100
41
1
10
44
49
34
5
2
2
5
4
13
25
108
27
27
i
16
15
6
8
10
4
107
90
104
320
68
508
11
128
94
505
2
7
287
38
437
471
2
19
2
1
4
21
13
1
11
1
1
37
12
7
17
2
27
50
10
41
i
60
32
16
13
12
15
*
140
1
2
2
59
47
1
30
*
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
Case
held
Disposi
Referred without
open
Proba Agency Under
Committed
to—
commitment to— Restitu
Other without tion not
tion of or indi tempo Case dis
tion,
reported
ficer su vidual rary care missed
fine, or disposi further
action
pervis super of an in or ad Institu Agency Insti Agency costs or tion of
or indi tution or indi
case
ing
vising stitution justed
tion
dered
vidual
vidual
t
with
L ess T han 100,000 P opulation .
64
33
2
1
40
62
16
6
63
55
3
1
188
28
1
8
23
3
19
137
1
2
4
1
77
276
220
91
50
50
13
94
14
34
£83
48
16
59
15
5
10
476
3
8
28
276
609
366
218
137
57
65
20
37
28
132
16
171
133
102
2
2
173
3
75
38
1
7
44
91
503
10
3
204
2
4
6
3
971
231
26
19
11
9
866
2
2
2
6
2
2
45
4
7
35
2
4
15
20
1
15
3
26
8
7
84
1
67
3
2
1
2
■ 5
94
40
27
3
3
3
1
4
1
1
11
3
31
64
17
26
9
4
19
32
11
4
122
2
9
10
12
4
1
25
1
3
3
5
12
8
2
1
5
3
3
16
7
6
27
33
7
3
49
12
10
33
30
71
34
19
169
25
9
24
362
143
i Specified areas include those with 100,000 or more population and other areas those with less than 100,000 population according to the 1930 census,
tExclusive of totals for Connecticut and Utah, which are included in figures for specified courts and other courts.
i
1
14
6
3
2
1
6
1
9
1
2
2
1
12
42
1
3
3
416
4
63
30
2
1
S T A T IS T IC S , 1931
A reas
176
62
J U V E N IL E -C O U R T
New Jersey:
Hudson County........................- .........
Mercer County____________________
New York:
Buffalo (city)______________________
Erie County (exclusive of Buffalo)___
Monroe County___________________
New York (city)___________________
Rensselaer County____________ ____
Syracuse (city)______________ ____
Westchester County....... ........... .........
Ohio:
Franklin County____________ ____
Hamilton County_________________
Mahoning County____ ____ _______
Montgomery County______________
Oregon: Multnomah County---------------Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County________ ________
Fayette County___________________
Montgomery County______________
Philadelphia (city and county)_____
South Carolina: Greenville County_____
Utah: Third District__________________
Virginia: Norfolk (city)________________
Washington:
Pierce County_____________________
Spokane County__________________
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County_________
Ox
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
52
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
T a b l e I X .— Color, nativity, and parent nativity of children dealt with in dependency
and neglect cases disposed of by 89 courts serving specified areas and 38 courts
serving other areas during 1981 1
Dependency and neglect cases
White c tiildren
Area served by court
Native,
Total
Native, foreign
or
native
Total parent mixed
age parent
age
Chil
dren
Col whose
Native,
ored color
Nativ
parent For ity not chil
eign
age
dren was
re
not re
not re born ported
ported
ported
Total cases 2............ ..............
2 1 ,6 1 3
1 8 ,6 4 2
1 1 ,4 9 9
5 ,8 1 7
776
State total: U tah.................. .........
204
2 04
155
41
8
1 00 ,00 0 o r M o r e
. _______ __________________ 1 9 ,7 6 5
1 6 ,8 6 8
9 ,9 8 5
5 ,6 3 1
726
A
reas
P
w it h
o p u l a t io n
Alabama: Mobile County____
California:
San Diego County.............
San Francisco County... .
Connecticut: Bridgeport (city).
District of Columbia..............
Florida: Dade County_______
Georgia: Fulton County..........
Indiana:
Lake County..... ................
Marion County__________
Iowa: Polk County..... .............
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish.....................
Orleans Parish___________
Maryland: Baltimore (city). .
Michigan:
Kent County____________
Wayne County__________
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_______
Ramsey County....... .........
New York:
Buffalo (city)____ _______
Erie County (exclusive of
Buffalo)...........................
Monroe County_________
New York (city)_________
Rensselaer County......... .
Syracuse (c it y ).................
Westchester County..........
Ohio:
.Franklin County________
"Hamilton County_______
Mahoning County.............
Montgomery County____
Oregon: Multnomah County..
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County.............
Fayette County.................
Montgomery County____
Philadelphia (city and
county)_______________
South Carolina: Greenville
County........ ...................... .
Utah: Third District_________
Virginia: Norfolk (city)______
Washington:
Pierce County___________
Spokane County_________
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County
A
reas
P
w it h
o p u l a t io n
L e s s T h a n 100 ,00 0
................................................
5
2
1
349
842
49
297
658
401
323
769
49
136
6 30
345
241
332
19
118
581
345
52
349
28
18
40
27
225
242
404
147
189
3 60
57
184
323
155
352
314
142
244
223
121
275
766
296
193
279
271
2 ,9 7 0
1
271
255
2 ,8 9 6
1
1
3
11
1
15
33
26
73
12
7
3
161
28
80
2
36
6
3
4
94
19
48
33
77
273
667
191
224
71
348
56
292
177
209
145
55
31
1
2
17
56
1
140
78
53
44
1
1
1
70
4
13
108
91
25
2
99
11
14
28
1
4
16
71
64
33
31
7
107
192
4 ,1 7 3
162
116
438
104
189
3 ,6 7 4
160
114
390
76
68
1 ,5 5 6
136
65
118
28
119
1 ,9 1 1
3
3
498
2
55
10
729
371
188
348
646
619
256
161
245
634
576
215
96
236
526
27
26
44
4
64
13
13
2
1
10
4
18
1
1
1
1
4
22
909
4
7
735
3
4
380
334
1
20
1
3 ,6 5 4
2 ,7 9 6
1 ,4 6 2
1 ,2 1 8
58
172
159
49
172
126
49
125
39
48
174
1 ,2 1 6
46
171
1 ,1 8 8
44
153
618
1 ,8 4 8
1 ,7 7 4
1 ,5 1 4
2
22
48
205
1
26
2
10
1
168
13
1
2*
48
110
115
27
103
12
174
1
4
122
l
2
3
47
17
52
858
9
1
8
2
1
10
351
1
1
200
4
9
186
50
8
1
33
3
10
2
3
28
16
74
• Specified areas include those with 100,000 or more population and other areas those with less than 100,000
population according to the 1930 census.
2 Exclusive of the total for Utah, which is included in figures for specified courts and other courts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
53
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1Ô31
T a b l e X .— Reason for reference to court of families re-presented in dependency and
neglect cases disposed of by 89 courts serving specified areas and 88 courts serving
other areas during 1981 1
Families represented in dependency and neglect cases
Reason for reference to court
Area served by court
Total cases *___________________
State total: Utah_______ . ___________
Ar
1 0 0 ,0 0 0 o r M o r e P o p u l a
. . ........................................................................
11,353
8,516
Alabama: Mobile County_______
California:
San Diego County...................
San Francisco County_______
Connecticut: Bridgeport (city)___
District of Columbia_____________
Florida: Dade County....... ........... .
Georgia: Fulton County_________
Indiana:
Lake County. ...........................
Marion County_____________ _
Iowa: Polk County______________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish_____ __________
Orleans Parish_____ ____ _____
Maryland: Baltimore (city).......... .
Michigan:
Kent County—................. .......
Wayne County______ _______
Minnesota:
Hennepin County______ ____ _
Ramsey County_____________
New York:
Buffalo (city)........................... .
Erie County (exclusive of
Buffalo)_____ _____________
Monroe County_____________
New York (city)_____________
Rensselaer County___________
Syracuse (city)......................... .
Westchester County_________
Ohio:
Franklin County____________
Hamilton County___________
Mahoning County___________
Montgomery County________
Oregon: Multnomah County_____
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny C o u n ty .................
Fayette County------- -----------Montgomery County________
Philadelphia (city and county)
South Carolina: Greenville County
Utah: Third District____________
Virginia: Norfolk (city)__________
Washington:
Pierce County_______________
Spokane County_____________
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County___
L e s s T h a n 1 00 ,0 0 0 P o p u
........................................................................
Physi
cally
handi
capped Other Not re
and in reason ported
need of
public
care
284
1,104
672
18
5
1,013
572
5
1
59
13
10,482
7,911
726
251
1
3
Living
under
condi
tions
injuri
ous to
morals
762
101
239
403
23
186
357
251
106
358
17
162
299
188
8
9
11
8
1
142
139
239
90
131
156
97
261
207
h
4
4
2
29
3
1
2
11
5
66
32
4
8
13
56
30
1
1
2
26
1
7
2
10
9
6
23
6
10
57
58
231
170
2
21
19
7
1
1
20
8
12
10
142
376
136
346
1
7
2
2
23
1
ISO
103
149
102
15
2
13
1
30
17
1
58
85
2,021
94
95
282
9
79
1, 779
71
3
143
1
26
7
3
4
379
199
130
197
409
242
88
99
146
319
15
18
3
21
6
408
3
2
1, 758
37
83
91
341
1
2
l r 192
21
47
59
56
1
358
1
Ia
6
75
3
4
2
100
11
17
24
33
1
3
31
114
628
19
65
470
7
8
50
3
10
2
31
93
3
7
4
871
605
36
33
91
100
r e a s w it h
l a t io n
Abuse
or cruel
treat
ment
6
e a s w it h
t io n
A
With
out ade
quate Aban
Total care
or don
support ment or
from
deser
tion
parent
or guar
dian
13
4
1
1
12
1
20
3
13
5
1
8
24
33
15
5
152
5
9
13
44
8
78
122
83
63
3
19
56
25
23
24
3
4
1
2
1
2
11
1
6
* Specified areas include those with 100,000 or more population and other areas those with less than
100,000 population according to the 1930 census.
i Exclusive of the total for Utah, which is included in figures for specified courts and other courts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
T a b l e X I .— Disposition o f dependency and neglect cases disposed o f by 4-1 courts serving specified areas and 99 courts serving other areas
Oi
during 1931 1
Dependency and neglect cases
Child kept under supervision
of court
Area served by court
Proba
tion
officer
super
vising
Agency
or indi
vidual
super
vising
Total cases1 ........................................
2 2 ,3 1 7
4 ,3 1 3
1 ,5 7 9
State totals:
Connecticut________________ ____ ___
Utah_____________ _________________
753
204
24
23
19
.
1 9 ,9 9 0
3 ,4 1 8
1 ,4 7 6
Alabama: Mobile County......... ...........
California:
San Diego County_______________
San Francisco County___________
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)________ _______
Hartford (city)__________________
New Haven (city)_______________
District of Columbia________________
Florida: Dade County______________
Georgia: Fulton County________ ____
Indiana:
Lake County______________ _____
Marion County........... ................ .
Iowa: Polk County_________________
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish___________________
Orleans Parish__________ ________
Maryland: Baltimore (city)_________
Michigan:
Kent County....... ...........................
Wayne County________ _________
5
A
r e a s w it h
1 0 0 ,0 0 0
or
M
ore
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
P
o p u l a t io n
349
8 42
66
22
1
Under
tempo Case dis
rary care missed
of an
or ad
insti
justed
tution
Referred without
commitment to—
Committed to—
Insti
tution
Agency
Indi
vidual
1 ,8 3 8
5 ,0 9 0
2 ,8 7 3
3 ,4 3 3
4 38
255
978
4 89
1 ,0 3 0
61
86
3 94
38
41
5
19
12
9
6
67
64
22
8
55
6
1 ,6 7 8
4 ,8 7 0
2 ,5 1 3
3 ,3 1 2
3 68
190
8 74
426
864
1
3
13
20
8
14
5
2 02
72
50
678
26
49
72
2
4
1
5
20
121
3
15
11
1
12
255
8
9
112
19
30
1
147
54
6
94
14
1
1
3
36
4
1
1
1
7
6
2
1
9
1
4
162
44
35
2
26
1
34
21
2 17
49
116
109
2 97
6 58
401
1
47
3
2 10
12
112
225
242
404
29
10
115
66
155
352
3 14
16
9
21
3
21
8
50
36
25
48
98
10
14
105
35
27
41
2 75
7 66
11
130
45
391
32
9
154
68
32
25
22
2
9
46
1
Agency
or indi
vidual
Insti
tution
Other
dispo
sition
Case
held
open
without
further
action
32
6
10
3
8
3
1
4
8
22
15
4
12
11
4
3
4
13
66
3
8
2
3
142
2
6
111
30
8
1
Dispo
sition
not re
ported
1
1
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
Total
Child not kept under supervision of court
A
reas
L e s s T h a n 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 P o p u
_____________________________________________
296
193
1
4
71
107
192
4,173
162
116
438
729
371
188
348
646
123
42
1
2
112
909
4
7
3,654
58
172
159
871
7
205
9
21
12
17
3
1
3
48
174
1,216
11
15
129
14
8
37
4
3
515
2,327
895
103
160
160
127
2
16
1,258
6
1
596
4
75
22
42
30
5
50
5
46
112
53
58
8
21
10
53
41
6
1
1,322
7
2
40
3
17
75
817
140
9
7
68
40
99
33
5
141
17
2
5
63
53
214
45
24
95
260
71
49
18
101
15
38
171
39
13
7
16
5
7
31
9
5
1
2
4
3
453
1,557
35
4
19
147
4
11
4
35
3
3
1,251
3
85
22
25
332
8
6
56
220
360
1
1
2
19
138
2
25
9
3
6
15
79
2
1
10
85
8
24
83
18
74
6
3
8
28
11
9
19
11
28
1
4
7
45
1
6
2
14
15
20
66
6
4
19
7
4
2
50
10
37
6
19
43
121
70
65
104
63
166
3
5
39
19
w it h
l a t io n
J Specified areas include those with 100,000 or more population and other areas those with less than 100,000 population according to the 1930 census.
* Exclusive of totals for Connecticut and Utah, which are included in figures for specified courts and other courts.
1
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
Minnesota:
Hennepin County_______________
Ramsey County________________
New York:
Buffalo (city)............... ...................
Erie County (exclusive of Buffalo).
Monroe County_________________
New York (city)________________
Rensselaer County______________
Syracuse (city)__________________
Westchester County_____________
Ohio:
Franklin C ounty..______________
Hamilton County_______________
Mahoning County___________ . . . .
Montgomery County____________
Oregon: Multnomah County________
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County_______________
Fayette County____ ____________
Montgomery County____________
Philadelphia (city and county)___
South Carolina: Greenville County__
Utah: Third District________________
Virginia: Norfolk (city)_____________
Washington:
Pierce County__________________
Spokane County________________
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County______
Ox
Ox
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
56
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
T a b l e X I I .— Reason for discharge in cases of delinquent children discharged from
supervision hy 34 courts serving specified areas and 62 courts serving other areas
during 1931 1
Cases of delinquent children discharged from supervision
Reason for discharge
Con
Con
duct of
duct
child or
Expi condi
of
child ration tions
Total satis
unsat
of
fac period isfac
tory speci tory
or con fied by but fur
ditions court ther su
im
pervi
proved
sion not
advised
Area served by court
Total cases 2_________________
1 3 ,1 5 0
Child
com
mitted
or re
ferred
to in
stitu
tion
Where
abouts
Child of
child
com
un
mitted known
Not
or re
or
Other re
ferred moved
reason
port
to
from
ed
agency juris
or indi diction
vidual
of
court
8 ,3 8 6
1 ,2 7 9
269
1 ,5 7 2
210
4 90
936
708
117
141
19
9
89
31
22
6
31
15
347
23
1 ,0 8 1
230
1 ,4 9 0
186
439
625
1
3
28
23
10
8
State totals:
Utah.......................................... __
A r e a s w i t h 1 0 0 ,0 0 0
or
M
ore
P
1 ,3 3 3
'4 3 5
210
op-
ULATION.......................................................... 1 1 ,7 6 8
Alabama: Mobile County______
California:
Connecticut:
Hartford (city)____________
Indiana:
Lake County______________
Marion County___________
Maryland: Baltimore (city)____
Minnesota:
Hennepin County____ i_____
7 ,7 0 9
29
22
168
407
307
56
2 30
205
628
141
433
35
136
143
381
93
283
167
18
142
199
1 ,4 5 2
95
14
86
96
1 ,1 3 4
712
3 30
612
306
299
505
15
187
139
139
119
88
2 ,0 8 3
3
122
3
2
8
20
42
2
3
100
2 ,6 1 7
8
11
236
Oregon: Multnomah County___
Pennsylvania:
4
2
60
6
6
52
10
13
16
6
3
9
2
32
76
257
24
54
10
180
464
1
3
41
35
4
37
2
10
0
1
24
2
35
3 50
3
11
1
4
5
12
1
6
4
32
1
1
2
1
5
1
12
8
47
5
1
7
49
68
3
6
27
14
39
15
9
28
24
35
153
3
31
11
65
89
183
10
12
8
27
28
26
11
1
14
4
8
13
23
4
1
1
1
s
2
6
7
63
6
86
5
34
22
7
3
3
1
5
5
45
3
4
185
6
2
2
10
45
Ohio:
158
158
297
8
24
6
ii
Erie County (exclusive of
New York (city)__________
0
52
3
7
New Jersey:
Mercer County____________
New York:
3
37
8
2
5
1
1
Philadelphia (city and coun827
255
24
227
231
426
14
184
3 12
1 ,3 8 2
1 ,6 7 7
248
South 'Carolina: Greenville
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County..
A
reas
w it h
L
ess
T
han
110
67
1
7
15
97
1
7
28
2
1
1
82
3
3
4
39
82
24
1
22
1
8
16
7
9
4
13
51
311
1 00 ,00 0
198
1 Specified areas include those with 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 or more population and other areas those with less than 1 00 ,00 0
population according to the 193 0 census.
J Exclusive of totals for Connecticut and Utah, which are included in figures for specified courts and
other courts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
57
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
T able X I I I .— Reason for discharge in cases of dependent and neglected children
discharged from supervision by 23 courts serving specified areas and 31 courts
serving other areas during 1931 1
Cases of dependent and neglected children discharged from super
vision
Reason for discharge
Area served by court
Total cases.
A reas
100,000 o r
M o r e P op
u l a t i o n .................. ................... - ...............
w it h
Con
duct of
Total child
satis
factory
or con
ditions
im
proved
reas
P
w it h
o p u l a t io n
L ess T h a n
1 00 ,00 0
.....................................................
Child
Child com
com mitted
mitted or re
or re ferred
to
ferred
to in agency
stitu or in
divi
tion
dual
Where
abouts
of child
un
Not
known Other re
or
reason port
moved
ed
from
juris
diction
of court
4,192
3,846
California:
33
San Diego County.......—
122
San Francisco County—
196
District of C olum bia............
130
Florida: Dade County...........
57.
Georgia: Fulton County.......
Indiana:
84
Lake County.......... .........
2
Marion County................
56
Iowa: Polk County----- ------65
Maryland: Baltimore (city)..
591
Michigan: Wayne County—
Minnesota:
153
Hennepin County--------54
Ramsey County...............
New York:
2
Buffalo (city)---------------35
Monroe County....... ............
New York (city)................... 1,252
1
Rensselaer County------------2
Westchester County----------Ohio:
3
Hamilton County.................
6
Montgomery County---------94
Oregon: Multnomah County—
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia (city
407
and county)............ - - ........- - —
South
Carolina:
Greenville
9
County..................... .........---492
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County..
A
Con
duct of
child or
Ex condi
pira tions
tion of unsatis
period factory
speci but fur
fied by ther
court super
vision
not ad
vised
346
9
63
96
93
31
4
4
2
3
30
77
14
15
24
23
10
2
8
21
426
80
43
2
23
885
39
136
24
2
247
1
i Specified courts include those with 100,000 or more population and other courts those with less than
100,000 population according to the 1930 census.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
58
T a b l e X I V .— Length o f time child was under supervision in cases of delinquent
children discharged from supervision by 34 courts serving specified areas and 62
courts serving other areas during 1931 1
Cases of delinquent children discharged from supervision
Duration of supervision
Area served by court
Total
4,955
4,506
2,245
622
234
400
165
255
30
4,111
2,021
54
95
21
31
10
106
109
69
19
73
61
268
32
179
167
18
142
199
1,452
100
14
48
51
353
59
1
61
83
624
7
3
24
58
268
712
330
291
75
320
158
68
299
505
33
177
41
114
168
187
35
139
10
46
987
4
11
236
11
25
1,384
1
11
63
158
158
297
62
8
148
47
27
1
827
24
227
231
426
1
292
4
100
1 ,3 8 2
Total cases *___________________ 13,150
State totals:
Connecticut.
Utah.............
A
r e a s w it h
1,333
435
1 0 0 ,0 0 0 o r M o r e P o p u l a
t i o n ...... .................................................. -
..........
Alabama: Mobile County..............
California:
San Diego County....................
San Francisco County-----------Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)------------------Hartford (city).........- ................
New Haven (city).....................
District of Columbia.......................
Florida: Dade County....................
Georgia: Fulton County-------------Indiana:
Lake County. - .........................
Marion County--------------------Iowa: Polk C ou n ty ......... - ............
Maryland: Baltimore (city)...........
Michigan: Wayne County— ------Minnesota:
Hennepin County----------------Ramsey County-------------------New Jersey:
Hudson County-------- -— .......
Mercer County------ —----------New York:
Buffalo (city)......... ....... -----Erie County (exclusive of Buf
falo) ______________________
Monroe County-------------------New York (city)......................
Rensselaer County---------------Syracuse (city)--------------------Westchester County................
Ohio:
Hamilton County-----------------Montgomery County------------Oregon: Multnomah County-------Pennsylvania:
Fayette County-------------------Philadelphia (city and county).
South Carolina: Greenville County.
Utah: Third District.....................
Virginia: Norfolk (city)--------------Wisconsin: Milwaukee County—
A reas
w it h
L
ess
T
11,768
4 ,2 5 1
29
29
168
407
243
56
230
205
628
141
433
100
2,617
8
h a n 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 P o p u
l a t i o n ___________________________________
18
2
1 year, months,
6
Not
Less
years, 3 years report
less
less
than 6 months,
less
than 18 than
less
ed
2 than 3
months than 12 months
years
22
26
136
122
462
281
662
8
154
150
6
7
121
47
66
33
100
138
101
153
14
101
111
169
67
118
704
395
224
21
699
3
22
37
i Specified areas include those with 100,000 or more population and other areas those with less than 100,000
t o a ^ S t o i o d Utto, which ere included in ngures t o epeeiied courts tod other
courts.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
59
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
T able X V .— Length of time child was under supervision in cases o f dependent and
neglected children discharged from supervision by 23 courts serving specified areas
and 31 courts serving other areas during 1931 1
Cases of dependent and neglected children discharged from
supervision
Duration of supervision
Area served by court
Total
Total cases__________________ _
A
1 0 0 ,0 0 0 o r M o r e P o p u l a
t i o n ___________________________________________
4,192
1,673
1,105
515
270
356
272
1
3,846
1,540
1,011
447
247
332
268
1
33
122
196
130
67
15
41
58
93
28
12
31
52
35
26
4
11
28
2
1
1
2
46
14
9
1
23
3
84
2
56
65
591
33
2
28
26
77
21
18
4
2
18
17
95
6
15
88
3
6
82
1
1
180
153
54
48
28
21
13
14
6
20
6
16
1
2
35
1,252
1
2
6
676
1
1
2
3
454
4
95
5
19
17
7
3
6
94
1
1
23
38
407
9
492
70
6
279
56
50
116
346
133
94
r e a s w it h
California:
San Diego County___________
San Francisco County_______
District of Columbia_____________
Florida: Dade County___________
Georgia: Fulton County_________
Indiana:
Lake County________________
MarionCounty______________
Iowa: Polk County______________
Maryland: Baltimore (city)______
Michigan: Wayne County_______
Minnesota:
Hennepin County____________
Ramsey County_____________
New York:
Buffalo (city)________________
Monroe County______________
New York (city)_____________
Rensselaer County___________
Westchester County_________
Ohio:
Hamilton County____________
Montgomery County_________
Oregon: Multnomah County.........
Pennsylvania: Philadelphia (city
and county)____________ ______ _
South Carolina: Greenville County
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County___
A
1 year,
2
3
18
6
Less
less months, years, years Not re
than 6 months,
less
than
18
less
than
less
or
ported
months than 12 months 2 years
than 3 more
L e s s T h a n 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 P o p u
___________ ___________ _________________
2
6
69
34
1
1
6
18
1
5
5
5
32
1
15
76
2
123
81
68
23
24
4
1
r e a s w it h
l a t io n
i Specified areas include those with 109,000 or more population and other areas those with less than 100,000
population according to the 1930 census.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Appendix.— COURTS FURNISHING STATISTICAL MATERIAL
FOR 1931
T a b l e A .— Principal city in área served by specified courts 1
Area served by court
Principal city in
area served
Area served by court
Principal city in
area served
New Haven (city) ..............
District of Columbia__________ Washington.
Florida: Dade County............... Miami.
Atlanta.
Indiana:
Lake County_____________ Gary.
Marion County___________ Indianapolis.
Iowa: Polk County.................... Des Moines.
Louisiana:
Caddo Parish_____________ Shreveport.
New York:
Buffalo (city)........................
Erie County (exclusive of Lackawanna.
Buffalo).
Monroe County___________ Rochester.
New York (city)__________
Troy.
Syracuse (city)____________
Westchester County_______ Yonkers.
Ohio:
Franklin County__________ Columbus.
Hamilton County_________ Cincinnati.
Mahoning County________ Youngstown.
Montgomery County.......... Dayton.
Oregon: Multnomah County__ Portland.
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny County_________ Pittsburgh.
Maryland: Baltimore (city).......
Michigan:
Kent County_____________
Wayne County______ _____
Minnesota:
Hennepin County................
Ramsey County__________
New Jersey:
Hudson County...................
Montgomery County______
Philadelphia (city and
county).
South Carolina:
Greenville
County.
Utah: Third District.......... ........
Virginia: Norfolk (city)_______
Washington:
Pierce County.......................
Alabama: Mobile County_____ Mobile.
California:
San Diego County________ San Diego.
San Francisco County......... San Francisco.
Connecticut:
Bridgeport (city)__________
Grand Rapids.
Detroit.
Minneapolis.
St. Paul.
Jersey City.
Trenton.
Norristown.
Greenville.
Salt Lake City.
Tacoma.
Spokane.
Wisconsin: Milwaukee County. Milwaukee.
1Courts serving areas with 100,000 or more population according to the 1930 census. For number of
cases disposed of by each court, see table I.
60
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
61
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
T able B .— Area o f court jurisdiction and number of delinquency, dependency and
neglect, and special-proceedings cases disposed of, and number of cases o f children
discharged from supervision, by 126 courts serving areas with less than 100,000
population 1 during 1981
Area served by court
Alabama:
Baldwin County_______
Chambers County_____
Clarke County_________
Colbert County________
Coosa County__________
Dallas County_________
Escambia County______
Etowah County________
Fayette County________
Jackson County________
Lauderdale County_____
Macon County_________
Perry County__________
Sumter County_____ ....
Washington County____
Connecticut:
Andover (town)*________
Ansonia (city)....... .........
Barkhamsted (town)___
Berlin (town)__________
Bloomfield (town)______
Branford (town)________
Bristol (city)____ ______
Cheshire (town)________
Chester (town)_________
Clinton (town)_________
Colebrook (town)_______
Cornwall (town)_______
Coventry (town)_______
Danbury (city)_________
Derby (city)....................
East Granby (town)____
East Hartford (town)___
East Haven (town)_____
East Windsor (town)2___
Enfield (town)_________
Essex (town)___________
Fairfield (town)________
Farmington (borough)__
Greenwich (borough)___
Haddam (town)________
Hamden (town)________
Killingly (town)________
Litchfield (tow n)2______
Manchester (town)_____
Marlborough (town)____
Meriden (city)_________
Middlefield (town)_____
Middletown (city)...........
Milford (town)_________
Monroe (town) 2. _______
Naugatuck (borough)----New Britain (city)_____
New Canaan (town)____
New Hartford (town)___
Newington (town) 2------New London (city)_____
New Milford (town)____
Norfolk (to w n )...............
North Stonington (town).
Norwalk (city)_______...
Norwich (city)_________
Norwich (town)________
Orange (town)--------------Plainfield (town)_______
Plainville (town)_______
Plymouth (town)_______
Pomfret (town)________
Principal city or bor
ough in area served
Fairhope...
Lanett___
Jackson___
Sheffield-..
Goodwater.
Selma____
Atmore___
Gadsden...
Fayette___
Scottsboro.
Florence...
Tuskegee—.
Marion___
Yorktown..
Delin
quency
cases
16
9
1
5
Cases of
Depend Special- children
dis
ency and proceed
neglect ings cases charged
from su
cases
pervision
8
5
110
39
42
26
13
34
6
3
46
8
219
8
22
18
3
10
6
1
1
1
53
1
71
10
43
6
2
3
4
26
24
37
9
18
1
39
1
3
90
74
8
13
3
Branford Borough-----
12
6
83
1
3
2
12
73
257
6
1
18
5
1
3
4
7
3
17
6
19
18
106
6
40
14
7
......................................
Danielson Borough—
Litchfield Borough___
5
4
3
.....................................
......................................
.....................................
Woodmont Borough..
65
1
Ill
2
.....................................
......................
New Canaan Borough
.....................................
.....................................
......................................
34
470
4
1
1
149
..........................
7
3
1
1
3
20
10
5
1
36
41
30
111
1
5
7
65
2
1
230
81
3
7
7
2
2
56
10
2
4
10
1
4
54
29
1
3
1According to the 1930 census.
2 Cases are for specified area, although probate court dealing with dependency and neglect cases has
jurisdiction over wider territory.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
62
JUVENILE-COURT STATISTICS, 1931
T a b l e B . — Area o f court jurisdiction and number o f delinquency, dependency and
neglect, and special-proceedings cases disposed of, and number of cases of children
discharged from supervision by 126 courts serving areas with less than 100,000
population during 1981— Continued »
Area served by court
Principal city or bor
ough in area served
Connecticut—Continued.
Portland (town)_________________
Shelton (city)___________________
Southington Borough.
Stamford (city).......... .....................
Stonington Borough..
Delin
quency
cases
246
5
133
174
19
3
13
37
2
3
Illinois:
New York:
Asheville.....................
Pennsylvania: Lycoming County........ Williamsport________
Utah:
Virginia:
g
i
13
1
7
2
16
6
i
i
6
209
10
28
1
2
2
ii
1
7
6
7
i
8
i
32
2
46
6
4
i
10
28
1
4
Wallingford (borough)............. ......
North Carolina: Buncombe County—
Ohio:
Cases of
Depend Special children
ency and proceed
dis
neglect ings cases charged
cases
from su
pervision
_
13
3
1
39
5
1
1
6
63
3
43
5
4
17
18
22
7
i
2
12
38
28
180
48
85
76
32
91
21
3
5
11
30
11
20
135
37
63
92
191
116
53
187
43
89
1
15
33
6
77
192
82
308
47
18
54
27
56
22
28
246
645
354
266
146
105
24
4
8
429
151
152
3
5
1
3
2
16
5
5
14
60
19
63
17
2
1
52
26
15
121
41
23
105
* Cases are for specified area, although probate court dealing with dependency and neglect cases has
jurisdiction over wider territory.
* Cases are for specified area, although probate court dealing with delinquency and dependency and
neglect cases has jurisdiction over wider territory.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
@FedFRASER